UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAHDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 22.9.2003 passed by the Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (in short as Tribunal) in O.A. No. 671/2002 whereby and whereunder the application filed by respondents 1 to 15 have been allowed with a direction that they are entitled to be considered for absorption, grant of temporary status and regularisation in preference to any direct recruit against the available posts.

(2.) The learned Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider their case for absorption, grant of temporary status and regularisation within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order dated 21.5.2004 passed in R.A. No. 6/2004 by which the application for review of the above order dated 22.9.2003 has been rejected by the Tribunal. The case of respondents no. 1 to 15 in O.A. No.671/2002 was that they were initially engaged as casual labours prior to 1981 and were working in Group "D" posts and later on they were discharged by the authorities for want of sanctioned work. They made various representations for their absorption, grant of temporary status and regularisation in Group '"D" posts but nothing was done by the petitioners. In the meantime, as per direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Indrapal Yadav 'scase [(1985)(2) SLJ 58]. The Railway Board issued circular nos. 42/87 and 43/87 for empanelment and regularisation of casual labours in its letter dated 19.3.1987 vide Annexure -1 to the O.A. It is said that in pursuance of this letter wherein the cut -off date was prescribed as 31.3.1987 for making such representation for inclusion of name in the panel for the purpose of absorption were invited. Respondents 1 to 15 also submitted their representations within the cut -off date vide Annexure -A/2 series to the O.A. The respondents appeared in the screening test and cleared the same. The petitioners prepared a list of 419 casual labours who were declared successful after screening test and verification of documents. The said panel was prepared by a committee consisting four members of high ranks. The names of respondents 1 to 15 were also included in the said list for Jhajha Civil Engineering Department in Danapur Division where the respondents were working at the relevant time. It is alleged that inspite of such panel no further action was taken for absorption of the casual labours so, the respondents 1 to 15 filed O. A. no. 97/1998 before the Tribunal seeking for direction for regularisation of their services and the same was decided by the Tribunal by order dated 24.12.2001 whereby direction was given to the petitioners to consider their case for absorption and regularisation in accordance with law. The Railway authorities in pursuance to the direction of the Tribunal passed an order dated 26.6.2002 as contained in Annexure A/12 whereby their claim for absorption and regularisation was rejected. Against the said rejection the respondents 1 to 15 filed O.A. No. 671/2002 before the Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 22.9.2003.

(3.) THE petitioners appeared and filed written statement and opposed the prayer on the ground that there was no sanctioned work which compelled the petitioners to disengage the casual labours and the respondents 1 to 15 have failed to prove that their services were disengaged for want of work as the same was one of the requirements for absorption and regularisation of pre 1981 casual labours. The petitioners also refuted the claim of the respondents that any live register as contained in Annexures A/4 and A/5 to the O.A. was duly approved by the competent authority was prepared. They also took the stand that total number of working days against each of the casual labour whose name finds place amongst 419 candidates has not been incorporated in the list.