UNION OF INDIA Vs. C DEVADHASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common issue is involved in all these writ petitions/Original Petitions filed by the Railways who were the respondents in the O.As preferred by the applicants. The challenge is against the verdict passed by the Tribunal, whereby the date of absorption of the applicants in regular service has been ordered to be reckoned, with reference to that of their junior, by name K. Viswanathan, who was having only lesser number of days of work to his credit, for having regularised in accordance with the Scheme prepared by the Government [pursuant to the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Inderpal Yadav and others vs. Union of India, 1985 SCC(L&S) 526 and Dakshin Railway Employees Union, Trivandrum Division vs. General Manager, Southern Railway and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 1153. The benefit given to Viswanathan, according to the petitioners/Railways, was only by way of a mistake, which could not have been perpetuated by virtue of settled position of law and hence the challenge.

(2.) The issue with regard to the claim for retrospective regularisation was sought to be opposed on merits as well as on the ground of delay, which will be discussed in the due course. It appears that the grievance was sought to be pursued by the applicants more in view of subsequent changes because of the amendment of the CCS (Pension) Rules w.e.f. 01.01.2004, whereby the persons who came to be inducted into regular service after the said date, were taken outside the purview of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The contention of the applicants was that they were having 'continuing cause of action' and that regularisation was being delayed due to some or other lame excuse, without any statutory backing and that, had they been regularised on time, at least with effect from the date of granting benefit to their junior by name Viswanathan, they also would have been eligible to get the benefit of pension, subject to satisfaction of the requirement under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The sequence of events has to be analysed in the above background. W.P.(C)23757 of 2010 is taken as the lead case and the parties and proceedings are referred to as mentioned therein, except where it is separately dealt with.

(3.) Heard Shri James Kurian, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/Railways and Mr.T.C. Govindaswamy, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents/applicants in all the cases except O.P(CAT) 45 of 2016-where the respondent, despite completion of service of notice, has not chosen to enter appearance.