TEKLAL MAHANTO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .In these writ petitions, the petitioners, claiming to be similarly situated, have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting their claims for regularisation in the service of the Railways and the further orders passed refusing to review the earlier decision. The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the claim of the petitioners was highly belated. It also found that their claim that they were casual employees who had worked for more than 180 days could not be established with reference to any relevant material. It was also found that their claim was that they had worked some time between 1962 and 1980, which fact they could not establish and that they could not claim the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India's case on April 18, 1985 (Reported 1985 (2) SCC 648 : 1985-II-LLJ-406). It was also noticed that their names were not even found in the dormant list maintained for the year 1986. A review of the judgment was sought for on various grounds, but the Central Administrative Tribunal found that there was no reason to review its decision and dismissed the review petition giving reasons. It is thereafter that these writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders thus passed.

(2.) . Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to argue that the petitioners were casual employees who were entitled to the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by them. But no material could be shown for establishing that the petitioners were casual labourers employed on January 1, 1981 which was the cut-off date prescribed by the Supreme Court for enabling the casual labourers to get absorbed on the basis of the Scheme adopted by the Supreme Court. The petitioners claim to have been casually employed during the period 1962 to 1980. They could not also show that even during that period, they had been employed for more than 180 days. They could not show that they were employed as casual labourers on January 1, 1981. Their attempt to argue that their Employment Cards were collected by the Railway authorities and destroyed was found to be not acceptable. Such a case could not also be believed in the circumstances. Thus, the Tribunal, in our view, was fully justified in dismissing the original applications filed by the petitioners, it was also justified in holding that the claims were stale and the approach to the Tribunal itself was highly belated. It is clear that the petitioners have not been able to establish that they were entitled to the benefit of the scheme set out in Inderpal Yadav's case (supra). In that situation, we do not see any justification in interfering with the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal originally rendered.

(3.) . Equally, the Tribunal was justified in finding that no ground was made out for a review of its earlier orders dismissing the original applications. Reasons given for dismissing the review are fully sustainable. Therefore, the orders on the review petitions also deserve to be upheld. The result is that there is no merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed.