HIRANAND SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claimed that he had rendered voluntary service to the Railways acting as a Ticket Collector at Burdwan Railway Station for years together. Hence, he should be considered for regular appointment. He approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected his case. Hence, this petition. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a written argument inter alia raising the following issues --

(2.) Mr. Roy lastly contended that all other similarly circumstanced persons were considered for regular appointment in terms of earlier orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal. Hence, the identical benefit should be extended to the petitioner. Mr. Roy relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Sri-la Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidi VS State of Madras and Another, 1965 AIR(SC) 1578.

(3.) Opposing the application Mr. Priyabrata Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the Railway contended that the claim of the petitioner could not be considered in absence of evidence. Moreover even if his claim is given full credence there would be no law which could support his claim after the Apex Court decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka VS Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1. Mr. Mukherjee contended that the voluntary service, if any, rendered by the petitioner could not give any right to him to claim appointment or regularisation. To become a railway employee, the petitioner would have to compete for a regular recruitment process along with all eligible candidates and become successful for the same. His past service, if any, rendered to the Railway on voluntary basis or otherwise would have no role to play. Mr. Mukherjee prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.