INDER PAL YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners before us had been appointed as casual employees in different projects of the Northern Railway in the years 1979 to 1981. Because of uncertainty of their tenure, they filed writ petitions before this Court, during the pendency of which, a scheme was framed by the Railway Authorities for granting the petitioners temporary status with a view to permanent absorption. This scheme was approved with certain modifications, which are not relevant for the purpose of this petition, by the decision of this Court in Inder Pal Yadav V/s. Union of India. The scheme was implemented and the petitioners were categorised as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled. The implementation of the scheme was upheld again by this Court when the petitioners filed a complaint in this regard before this Court on 11.08.1986. The third petition filed by the petitioners or some of them was disposed of by this Court on 30.10.1986 in which this Court said that the petitioners before being "absorbed as khalasis on temporary status have to submit themselves to medical examination which is usually taken before a person is conferred temporary status". It was also made clear that the Railway Administration would give full benefit of actual service to the petitioners for the purpose of counting their seniority and it would be open to the Railway Administration to absorb the petitioners on temporary status either as work khalasis or as gang khalasis in the appropriate scale.

(2.) The fourth order in the field is an order dated 2.12.1987 on a separate writ petition, in which the petitioners alleged that although the petitioners had served continuously for a long period of time, the Railway Administration had neither permitted them seniority nor granted them the same rate of wages as regular employees. This Court by its decision Ram Kumar noted that the petitioners had admittedly been in service for more than 360 days and according to the Railway Authorities, they were entitled to temporary status. In the judgement this Court said:

(3.) This Court also noted the provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual, which, inter alia deals with the grant of regular status to a temporary appointee after selection through regular Selection Boards for Class IV staff. The Court, accordingly, directed that since many of the petitioners had been empanelled, the Railway Authority was expected to take prompt steps to screen such of the petitioners who were still waiting for the purpose of regularisation of their service.