NAND LAL THAKUR Vs. REGISTRAR CAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is up against the order dated 31st July 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 175 of 2001, declining to grant a relief that he be given a job. This is not a job in which the petitioner has participated in a selection process and may have been eliminated arbitrarily, irregularly or illegally.

(2.) It is contended that in 1974, an Hon'ble Minister of the Railways had made a promise that all those railway personnel who did not join the general strike, their wards would be guaranteed a job. No sooner the assurance was given in public, two years later the Government of India withdrew the assurance. It needs to be noticed also and it is acknowledged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the assurance was given in 1974, the petitioner was about 2 years old. When the circular was withdrawn, the petitioner was at best 4 years old. The petitioner desires that the assurance of the Hon'ble Minister be encashed in 2001, almost after 25 years.

(3.) Trade unionism permits workers to make their claims and simultaneously the management may also be resorting to methods on how to break up a strife or a strike. In this game, the Court cannot get involved. The petitioner claims discrimination that some of the employees managed to procure employment irregularly even after the order on the assurance of the Hon'ble Minister had been withdrawn.