UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUDARSAN BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the Union of India represented through its General Manager, South Eastern Railways and others challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated January 25, 1999 in a batch of O.As. Since all these writ petitions have been filed against a common Judgment of the Tribunal and involve common questions of law, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties in all the instant writ petitions were initially engaged as casual labour for the year 1967-68 and had worked till the year 1972-1973 under Permanent Way Inspectors belonging to Sompeta, Berhampur, Ramba and Khurda Road Units. They were retrenched in the year 1972-1973. Thereafter a circular was issued by the Railway Board dated March 16, 1987 in continuation of its earlier letters dated August 1, 1964, June 25, 1984 and September 11, 1986 in respect of maintenance of Live Casual Labour Register. It was decided therein that the benefit be extended to those casual labourers both project and open line, who had worked before January 1, 1981 and were discharged from service either for want of work or completion of work before January 1, 1981 for enrollment in the Live Casual Labour Register for the purpose of their engagement to future. The last date for receipt of such applications was March 31, 1987. It was directed therein that on each Zonal Railway, the list of project casual labour will be prepared for each Division, as under:

(3.) Subsequently vide letter dated November 11, 1987 the Railway Board issued detailed instructions in regard to (1) verification of genuineness of the applications received from project and open line casual labourers engaged prior to January 1, 1981 in response to the Board's letter dated March 2, 1987 and March 4, 1987 Sl. 58/87(2) re-engagement (3) giving them temporary status and (4) counting service for the purposes of absorption in regular employment etc. and a copy of the Railway Board's letter dated October 21, 1987 was enclosed for compliance. It was mentioned in that letter that names of such of the applicants whose claims as retrenched casual labourers are found to be genuine may be kept in a separate list in the respective seniority units. They may be borne on a "supplementary Casual Register". Their re-engagement will be considered only if the list of persons is already borne on the Live Casual Labour Register in the respective seniority units, and wherever the re-engagement of the persons on this supplementary list of casual labourers is considered, the Railway Administration should subject them to medical examination to determine their fitness for employment on Railways, having regard to the fact that they have not been working on the Railways for a number of years.