(1.) The applicants claimed that they are also entitled to the regularisation from 2003 on the basis of other judgments, in the case of identically situated persons. The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in O. P(CAT) No. 30/2016 and connected matters dated 21.12. 2016 as also a subsequent judgment in O. P(CAT)No. 288/2017 dated 16.11.2017. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner however, distinguishes the aforesaid decisions on the ground of delay. The petitioners though were denied regularisation in the year 2003, did not approach the Tribunal immediately. They approached the Tribunal for regularisation only in the year 2007. They were considered and regularised and they retired from service without filing even a representation for regularisation from the prior date. After retirement they have approached this Court for regularisation from the earlier date which is only for the purpose of getting pension; to which they are otherwise dis-entitled to. On the above grounds the learned ASG of India seeks rejection of the claim on grounds of delay and laches.
(2.) On the background facts, the Railways had a practice of regularising casual labourers who attain temporary status. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderpal Yadav and others v. Union of India [(1985) SCC (L&S) 526] held that all causal labourers had to be placed in a live list and that the future vacancies arising in the Railways in Group D post should be filled up from the said live list. There was, earlier, maintained a list of casual labourers appointed after 1981 which later was supplemented with a list of prior appointees too. Subsequently there was a merged list of seniority of prior and post 1981 casual labourers, from which the Railways were filling up the future vacancies in Group D.
(3.) While such filling up was done in the year 2003 many persons were called for appointment to the vacancies in regular posts. However, many of the persons who were in the live list were declined employment for reason of their having crossed the maximum age. The said prescription of maximum age was challenged, which led to this Court finding that there could be no age prescription since Inderpal Yadav (supra) did not make such a prescription. Many of the persons who were declined regularisation in 2003 for reason of they having crossed the maximum age approached the Tribunal and were regularised based on favourable orders. The decisions relied on by the respondent herein were the decisions of this Court in the Original Petition filed by the Railways.