V M CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us was initially engaged as a Technical Mate on a daily rate of Rs. 6.70 with effect from August 23, 1976 and thereafter at the daily rate which varied from Rs. 6.70 to Rs. 15.40. From time to time her services were utilised as Technical Mate as the required qualification is a diploma passed or failed. She was continued in service and she was declared to have attained temporary status in 1981. When the appellant represented that she had not been conferred with temporary status in Group 'C' the Chief Engineer took the view that the appellant was not entitled to be employed in Group 'C'. Thereafter an application was presented to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') seeking the relief of absorption in Group 'C'. The Tribunal set aside the action of the Chief Engineer and remitted the matter to the concerned authorities. Again the decision was rendered against the appellant and she approached the Tribunal. On this occasion the Tribunal directed the Chairman of the Railway Board to examine this matter and give appropriate relief. The Chairman of the Railway Board stated as under :

(2.) The order dated October 30, 1985 (sic) by which the appellant was appointed clearly indicates that her services had been engaged as a Technical Mate since she had completed the course of diploma in technical subjects. The view taken by the Chairman of the Railway Board that there is no post of Technical Mate available for absorption itself appears to be incorrect inasmuch as the Railway Board by its communication No. P(S) 443/I/Misc./MP/MAS/Vo.X stated as follows :

(3.) The view taken by the Chairman of the Railway Board that there cannot be any designation assigned to a casual employee baffles all logic because there can be engagement of a peon on casual basis and there can be engagement of a clerk on casual basis and it cannot be said that both are casual employees and, therefore, there cannot be any distinction between a peon and a clerk as they are engaged on casual basis. In that view of the matter we do not think that the view taken by the Chairman of the Railway Board was justified.