GHANASHYAM GIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 446 of 1995 dated 26th March, 1998 dismissing the petitioner's application for reinstatement in the service in the establishment of opp. parties 3 and 4.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case lies within a narrow campus. The petitioner was employed in the establishment of opp. party No. 3 as a casual labourer in the year 1990. He qualified himself in the trade test and thereafter he was allowed to work as a casual labourer for a period of more than 270 days. The petitioner was asked to appear for a medical test on deposit of Rs. 8/- as fees for such medical test. It was indicated in the appointment order that his engagement was casual subject to his facing a medical examination prescribed for a casual gangman. The applicant was found physically unfit for B-1 category, but was found fit in B-2 category. The opp. parties 4 & 5 did not permit the petitioner to work as casual labourer either under B-2 category or under category-D. Before filing the case in the Tribunal it has appeared that the petitioner submitted a representation, vide Annexure-3, to the opp. party No. 4. But since the opp. party No. 4 did not communicate any decision on the basis of such representation (Annexure-3), therefore, the petitioner has filed this case.

(3.) The learned Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's plea on the ground that he could not be found suitable for being appointed as a casual labourer in B-1 category post since he was found medically unsuitable. But in this case, the question arises for consideration that even assuming the petitioner was found unsuitable for holding the post of B-1 category gang-man, could he not be adjusted against B-2 category gang-man, or Group D or any other category. The petitioner submitted a representation, vide Annexure-3, before the opp. party No. 4 who has forwarded the same to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer for sympathetic consideration. But the said application is said to have not been disposed of. The learned Tribunal has also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court where the judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal was upheld.