UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway has challenged the order dated 22nd November, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi in O.A No.1067/2005 titled as ,,Ram Kishore & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. partly allowing the original application of the respondents and directing the petitioners to pay the respondents the arrears in lieu of the grant of temporary status after completion of 120 days on verification of their claims.

(2.) THE Brief facts to comprehend the dispute between the parties are that the respondents were initially appointed as casual labour during the period of 1974 to 1981 in the Construction Organization, and after screening of the respondents, all of them were working in the open line in their respective categories of Group ,,D posts. THE respondents were continuously working in their initial appointments till the date of attaining temporary status without any interruption and there was no break in their entire service records.

(3.) IN support of their submissions the respondents relied on the Railway Board INstructions dated 12th July, 1973 by which the period of six months of continuous service for the grant of temporary status was reduced to 4 months. The respondents also relied on the judgments of the Tribunal in OA No. 371/2001 titled as ,,Tara Chand & Ors. Vs. Union of INdia & Ors. and OA No. 996/2001 titled as ,,Rameshwar & Ors. Vs. Union of INdia & Ors wherein similar relief, as claimed by the respondents, were given to other casual labors. The respondents also relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in C.W. No. 5247/1997, wherein it was held that the order of the Labour Court denying the arrears of pay was erroneous and hence was set aside. It was also pointed out that the petitioners had themselves admitted the claim in LCA No. 302/1994 and LCA No. 307/1994. As per the respondents even though a large number of Railway employees were paid the arrears of pay with consequential benefits, yet for some reason best known to the petitioner the respondents were excluded from the same benefits.