RAMJIBHAI CHAMANBHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction & Another reported in 2005(3) Supreme 335, it has been observed by the Apex Court as under :

(2.) Petitioner was Artisan Khalasi with the Railways. During the course of employment, he suffered injury, thereby, incurring disability to the extent of 30%. He claimed alternative post on being declared medically unfit for D/1 category post held by him. Initially, he was appointed substitute on 15.11.1977 under Loco Foreman Bhavnagar Para. He was granted temporary status on 24.8.78. He suffered injury on 11.11.1986. He was given compensation of Rs. 26,603.00 for loss of earning capacity. He appeared before the Screening Committee for absorption in alternative post. However, it was not offered since he was substitute. Permanent Railway Employees are entitled to alternative job as a matter of right whereas temporary railway servants are considered for alternative job subject to certain conditions. Petitioner was screened along with other substitutes of Mechanical Department and was placed on provisional panel vide Memorandum dated 4.8.1988 subject to his passing medical examination and verification of character as per existing rules. However, absorption could not be done since no post in the lower category like C1, C2 was available and the screening committee decided that being a substitute, no alternative job can be offered. Accordingly, it was decided to delete his name from the muster roll/official records.

(3.) Therefore, question for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled for absorption against alternative post. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed Substitute Artisan Khalasi on 15.11.1977 and given temporary status on 24.8.1978. Question for examination is not the entitlement of the petitioner to benefits after discharge from service but providing of alternative employment to him after suffering of 30% disability during the course of employment. Position of substitute attaining temporary status and other workmen attaining temporary 'status has been examined by us in Rukhiben Rupabhai v. Union of India (Special Civil Application No. 15807 and 15808 of 2003 dated 11.5.2005]. It has been held that after attaining the temporary status, substitute or the workmen are entitled to pension and other benefits including regularization, rather, substitutes have two advantages, namely they are getting into regular employment from the stage of substitute or get temporary status. However, in this case, petitioner got temporary status on 24.8.1978, therefore, his consideration by the Railways for absorption in alternative post as substitute is illegal.