UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANDRA HARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was engaged as substitute safaiwala (as claimed by him) at Sargachi Railway Station by the Station Master on November 14, 1984. He worked for one hundred eighty nine days within a span of five years. In 1989 he was called to appear before a screening committee. The screening committee approved eighteen candidates. The respondent was however, unsuccessful in getting his name included in the list. He approached the Tribunal three times. His first application being O.A. No.72 of 1998 was disposed of by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated March 3, 2003 appearing at pages 128-132 of the petition. In the said case the petitioner contested his claim on the ground that he could not produce relevant documents in support of his claim. The Tribunal, upon considering the rival contentions, held that the applicant was eligible to appear at the screening test for absorption as safaiwala. The Tribunal directed the railways to conduct a screening test for the applicant to consider him for absorption as safaiwala. Page 133-134 would depict that the Railway asked the applicant to produce documents in support of his claim including "authority letter of engagement" that the applicant could not produce.

(2.) His second application being O.A. No.168 of 2004 was disposed of vide judgment and order dated July 7, 2005 appearing at pages 141-147 of the petition wherein the Tribunal considered the issue again and observed that one Ram Shobit Shaw being similarly circumstanced, got the benefit of absorption after a screening was done. Hence, there was no reason why the applicant's case would not be considered on the identical footing. The Tribunal directed the authorities to ignore his inability to produce the authority of engagement and consider him if he was otherwise eligible. The Railway passed a speaking order dated February 1, 2006 appearing at pages 148-149 of the petition. The Railway found that the applicant was not similarly circumstanced with Ram Shobit. The screening committee considered the case of the applicant in 1989 and found him not suitable for the post whereas Ram Shobit worked for four thousand nine hundred sixty nine days up to July 31, 2000 as against the applicant's service for one hundred eighty nine days. The Railway observed that even if the claim was considered ignoring his inability to produce authority of engagement the applicant could not be considered for re-engagement in view of "other lacunae". He approached the Tribunal again for the third time through O.A. No.485 of 2006. The Tribunal allowed his application vide judgment and order dated July 2, 2010 after considering the factual matrix. The Tribunal set aside the speaking order dated February 1, 2006 and asked the Railway to take his name on roll and pass a fresh speaking order regarding his regularization.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the Railway approached us by filing the instant application. Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the Railway contended that the petitioner did not work for continuous one hundred twenty days in a year which was prerequisite for being considered to be on the roll to be prepared for onward process of regularisation. He rendered service for one hundred eighty nine days throughout a span of five years whereas Ram Shobit rendered service for about five thousand days. These two cases could not be treated at par. On the issue of authority of engagement he contended that the Station Master did not have the authority to engage any casual staff without the approval of the General Manager. Hence, the very entry of the applicant being the respondent above named was illegal and his case could not be considered for regular absorption.