IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10785 of 2000 Between: B Ravi Raja Kumar, S/o Raja Rathnam, Rly. Qtrs. No. 288/RJY, Rajamundry, E.G.District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager, South Central Railway, 3rd Floor, Railway, Secunderabad, A.P. 2 Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order/orders or directions or Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus declaring the order dated 21/1/2000 in O.A. No. 909 of 1999 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench Hyderabad as bad illegal, arbitary and as such please suspend the same and quash and set a side the order No. B/C/9/Reservation Chart/Hindi dt. 7/6/99 of SR.DCM.BZA and direct the Respondent 1 to obsorbe the petitioner in the group 'D' service and pass such other order/orders deem fit and proper in the interest of principals of Natural Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.SANYASI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10785 of 2000 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Aggrieved by the order, dated 21-01-2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.909 of 1999, this writ petition has been filed. It is the case of the petitioner that he worked as a Typist in the office of the Chief Reservation Supervisor, Rajahmundry, from 01- 12-1992 to 15-03-1997 and 01-07-1997 to 26-03-1998, but he was abruptly stopped with effect from 26-03-1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier filed O.A.No.1404 of 1998 before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent therein to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. Pursuant to the said direction granted by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1404 of 1998, the application of the petitioner, dated 20-11-1998 was considered and rejected vide order, dated 07-06-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed present O.A.No.909 of 1999 seeking to set aside the said rejection order dated 07-06-1999 and to direct the respondents therein to reengage the petitioner as a Typist or to absorb as substitute in Group-D service. It is stated that several similarly situated persons were re-employed but the case of the petitioner was not considered. It is stated that as per the provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the petitioner is liable to be absorbed by the respondents. The Tribunal, after considering the contention of the petitioner as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF RAILWAY PORTERS, VENDORS AND BEARERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[1] dismissed the said O.A. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 21-01-2000, passed by the Tribunal as well as the rejection order, dated 07-06-1999, passed by the 2nd respondent. Heard both sides. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, dated 28-10-1998, made in O.A.No.1404 of 1998, the 2nd respondent, considered and rejected the representation of the petitioner, by order, dated 07-06-t1999, which reads as follows:- “In accordance with the orders of Hon’ble Tribunal in above case, the Divisional Railway Manager Vijayawada (R-2) has examined the matter in detail and disposed off. Your representation as under:- A The respondent, Railway Administration has engaged his services for a specific time and with a specific purpose leaving no doubt whatsoever with regard to the eventuality on conclusion of the contract. B The cases of those candidates on the Secunderabad Division have been examined and found that there does not lie any similarity with this case as they were freshers when they were engaged as substitutes. The case of the candidate engaged on Hubli Division bares no relevance as she was engaged as a substitute while utilizing her services for the purpose of the Reservation Charts in Hindi whereas the applicant has never been appointed as a Substitute by the Competent Authority. Her engagement was out of necessity, prevalent at that time, such necessity does not exist today due to modernization taking place in the Railway. C The preparation of Reservation Charts in Hindi is being increasingly done by modern methods and as such the type of work for which he was engaged under contract has become out dated, irrelevant and not justified in the changed circumstances. In view of the above, the request made by Sri Ravi Raja Kumar for regular absorption in Railway service is regretted.” We are of the opinion that as per Section 10 of the Contract (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, even after abolition of contract labour, the persons working in the establishment are not liable for automatic absorption, but it has to be considered depending upon the nature of work, whether the work is incidental to or necessary for the Department and whether it is of perennial nature etc. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis purely for a specific period for the purpose of typing/writing reservation charts at Rajahmundry Railway Station in English/Hindi due to shortage of staff conversant with the above work in the exigencies of service against payment of Rs.5/- per 100 names in the reservation chart in respect of Hindi names. The said engagement is purely contractual and was terminated with the introduction of computerized system of publishing reservation charts. The petitioner has not been issued any appointment order except acceptance letter, dated 09-11-1994, with reference to the offer, dated 27-09-1994 based on notification, dated 14-09-1994. We have perused the relevant records. The petitioner was engaged on contractual basis for a specific job of typing of names in the reservation charts for a specific period based on the notification, dated 14- 09-1994. A letter of engagement was issued on 09-11-1994, with reference to the offer, dated 27-09-1994, based on the notification, dated 14-09-1994. The said engagement has come to an end with the introduction of computerized system of publishing reservation chart. The petitioner has not been issued any appointment order to the post of Typist. We are of the opinion that for absorption or regularization of contract labour or temporary employee or daily worker or contractual worker, unless there is a requirement and the post exists, he is not entitled for regularization or absorption. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS[2] held that in the absence of any regular vacancy of posts existing in the Department, the question of regularization or absorption of the contract labour does not arise. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 22-07-2009 Prv [1] 1995 (2) SLR 709 [2] 2006 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 493