KALU ETC. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Detail facts of the each individual case will not be necessary to decide these writ petitions because short common questions of law are involved in all these 13 writ petitions. Facts which are necessary for the decision of these writ petitions, in brief, are that the petitioners submitted Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur, and prayed that the respondents may be directed to regularise the services of the applicant-petitioners on the post in Group -C, which is promotional post from posts in Group-D. The basis of claim of the petitioners, before the tribunal was, that all the petitioners were initially appointed on different lower posts falling in Group-D but they are working on a higher posts in Group-C, as ad hoc temporary employees, since last several years ranging from 5 to 25 years, therefore, in view of the circulars issued by the Railway Board dated 11/15.2.91, 13.2.97 and 9.4.97, they are entitled for the regularisation of their services on higher post in Group C. The Tribunal dismissed all the O.As. filed by the petitioners, following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of (1) U.O.I. V/s Moti Lal and Ors. reported in 1996 (33) ATC 304 which was followed by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Aslam Khan v/s U.O.I. which was decided on 30.10.2000. The questions raised before the tribunal were, (1) Whether the employees initially appointed on the lower post but working on a higher post for considerable long period without due selection/promotion can be regularised on higher post ? and (2) Whether the employees are entitled to have their services regularised in the group "C" post in the light of the circulars 1/15.2.91, 13.2.97 and 9.4.1997 ? issued by the Railway Board dated 11/15.2.9f,'

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Tribunal committed illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioners ignoring their long tenure of the service on the post ranging from 5 to 25 years falling in categories of Group "C". It is also submitted that, the Tribunal further committed more grave illegality by rejecting the claim of the petitioners by relying upon the judgment of the gull Bench of the Tribunal delivered in the Aslam Khan's case, which itself is based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Moti Lal's case. Moti Lal's case is also based upon the judgment of Apex Court, delivered in the case of (2) Ram Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 390. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the judgment delivered in Ram Kumar's case had been overruled by the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court which is reported in (3) 1996(1)SLJ 116 (SC). Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the very basis of rejection of the O.As. of the petitioners by the Tribunal is founded upon the judgments, which do not lay down the correct law.

(3.) Disputing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioners for regularisation, on the basis of long period of service on the higher post, no more survives in view of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein Supreme Court held that regularisation is not a mode of recruitment, and continuous working for a long period, in absence of any statute or statutory rules, does not by itself confer any right upon the employee to obtain a status to which he is not otherwise entitled to. Another basis of the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the circular issued by the Railway Board dated referred above, also does not survive in view of the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (4) (2002(1) RLR 246=2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) 808) wherein the circular issued by the Railway Board was also considered and the Division Bench rejected the claim of the employees regarding their claim of regularisation on the higher post in Group C. The learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon various judgments of the Division Benches of the Delhi High Court; wherein also the claim of the employees were rejected after considering several judgments of the not only various High Court but also number of the judgments of the Supreme Court.