THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos. 9460 and 9662 of 2000 COMMON ORDER: (Per Justice B Prakash Rao) Since these two writ petitions are filed at the instance of the Union of India through Railways, as against the common order passed against the respondents/applicants, hence, taken up together for disposal. The petitioners seek for a mandamus assailing the correctness of the orders passed in O A No. 1537 of 1998 dated 25.8.1999 allowing the application filed by the respondents/employees where they sought for a direction to regularize their services in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300/- as Inspector of Works (Grade-III) or Draughtsmen on par with similarly employed casual works maistries/technical mistries of South Eastern Railways, Metro Railways and Central Railways with all consequential benefits. The main challenge incidentally by the respondents/applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench is also against impugned order No.P/E/DCL/PH-II/Vol.VI dated 12.2.1998. The case of the applicant before the Tribunal in brief was that they were initially appointed as Casual Technical Mates during the period 1983 to 1986 in the Railway Electrification Project, Vijayawada and they are all diploma holders in Civil /Mechanical/Electrical Engineering etc. They have been entrusted with the work of preparation of tender schedules, estimates, survey plans etc and have completed 12 to 15 years of service as such. According to the applicants, the entire responsibilities and duties assigned to them were virtually on par with Inspector of Works (Grade III), Electrical Charge-men or Senior Draughtsman in the railways. It was pointed out that as per the orders passed by the Tribunal in O A No. 290 of 1994, a direction was issued to fix their pay scale in the scale of pay of Rs.1320-2040/- from the date of completion of 180 days casual service. Same direction was again reiterated in other applications in O A no. 712 and 867 of 1996. Further it was also their case that for no reason, they are being discriminated, even though, similar such employees were treated otherwise. According to them in South Eastern Railway, Casual Works Mistries perform similar duties of Engineering/Electrical constructions and also in Metro Railways at Calcutta for supervising execution of construction work and all of them have been given approval for absorption in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300/- by locally conducting written test and interview and that they were also diploma holders unlike the applicants. Consequently, those diploma holders were absorbed in the said scale, as evident from letter No. P Engg.W/PO/IOW/1400-2300 dated 18.12.1992 and office order No.P/519/92 dated 30.12.1992. It was further pointed out that similar to the applicants those casual work mistries of Metro Railways who are working in the scale as at Rs.950-1500/- and are not even Rs.1320-1400/- as is with the applicants. However, in spite of the aforesaid situation and drawing the higher scale and giving similar such benefits, under the impugned order dated 12.2.1998 it was decided to regularize them in the scale of Rs.950- 1500/- . As per the Railway Board letter dated 9.4.1997 seniority of the casual labours on regularization against permanent post would be maintained division-wise from the date of issuance of memorandum by the concerned division. Further it was observed that the casual labourer working in the Railway Electrification would continue to work till such time as work charge posts are available and they will be transferred to the division as per administrative convenience. The names of all these applicants are found in the said order and it was mentioned that they would be provided with provisional lien as Fitters in the scale of Rs.950-1500/- in Vijayawada Division of South Central Railways against 25 % promotion quota and where vacancies are not sufficient remaining casual labour by regularizing against the direct recruitment quota vacancies. Therefore for the reasons as stated above, mainly against all the higher scales which they are getting as per the orders of the Tribunal itself all along and long service and similar relief having been given to the other employees in very same department, as is reiterated by the orders of the Tribunal at other places, they sought for the relief of regularization. The said claim of the applicants was contested by the petitioners, inter-alia on various grounds, especially reiterating the fact that they were only casual workers and are quite different from that of those employees whom the relief was given. Therefore according to the petitioners, the applicants have no right or any valid claim to sustain, hence their applications are liable to be rejected. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal, especially taking into consideration the fact of applicants being continuing in the scale of Rs.1320- 2040 and the orders of the same Tribunal in O A No. 290 of 1994 dated 2.11.1994 apart from that of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur bench in O A No.379 of 97 and batch dated 10.3.1998 where under similar such circumstances, the relief was acceded to the employees and therefore having found no other reason to differ with the application, has allowed the same with direction to regularize their services in the said scale of Rs.1400-2300/- on par with similarly employed casual work mistries, technical mates of South Eastern Railways, Metro Railway and Central Railway and consequently the impugned order dated 12.2.1998 was set aside. In this Court, the main attack on behalf of the petitioners was again on the self same lines as raised before the Tribunal, especially to the effect that they are only casual labour without any sustainable right or claim and therefore the directions given by the Tribunal are not valid. In support of the same, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the decisions in Union of India Vs. Motilal and others[1], Union of India and others Vs. Narender Singh[2], Official Liquidator Vs Dayanand and others [3], Pinaki Chatterjee and others Vs Union of India and others [4] and Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi [5] These submissions were sought to be rebutted on behalf of the respondents/applicants falling back to their claim on the basis of the earlier orders in O A No. 290 of 1994 and also orders in O A No.379 of 97 and batch dated 10.3.1998, therefore, there is no warrant to interdict with the directions. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and also the submissions made across the Bar from both sides, the undisputed fact remain that the applicants are in service since 1983/1986 and they are all diploma holders and completed more than a decade service or so. There is also no dispute seriously on the part of the petitioners herein about the factum of the directions given in O A no. 290 of 1994 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench for fixing their pay in Rs.1320-2040/- from the date of completion of 180 days. The said order and the facts contained therein are virtually on same lines in respect of the similar employees. The said order has remained unchallenged and become final and no reason is pointed out as to why the said factum cannot constitute any sound basis for considering the claim of the applicants. That apart, there is also no dispute to the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur bench in O A No.379 of 97 and batch dated 10.3.1998 which again runs on the same lines as that of the present applicants’ grievance where similar such direction was given. Even on this count also, the learned Standing Counsel is not able to point out why those orders could not be followed up for granting similar relief to the applicants herein. It is not his case that either of those orders were in any way varied with in further challenge before any Court. Admittedly those orders have become final. The unit as such of the Railway should be construed as one for all purposes and there cannot be any distinction or variance for considering the claim of the employees who are similarly situated all around. One wing of the same department cannot take different stand and deny the benefits to the other employees. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner is also not able to show any valid reason to come to a different conclusion in respect of the directions given in both those applications. In the absence of any such material forthcoming or valid reason to take a different line, we are afraid, we cannot make any different approach to come to any other conclusion. Further, in the absence of any such material, it cannot be said that the grievance of the applicants is not wholly justified. Though, an attempt has been made by the learned Standing Counsel for petitioner by placing reliance on the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, they stand totally on different facts and circumstances and reiteration is on the principle, whereas the facts in the present case makes a total deviation and there is no reason to deny the said relief as granted. Especially where the orders of the Tribunal on more than one occasion is staring at them directly had variation with the stand taken by the petitioner, it is not open for them to simply take shelter under the principle of law and deny the legitimate claim of the applicants. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in both the writ petitions and accordingly they are dismissed. No costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ G BHAVANI PRASAD,J DATE: - -2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos. 9460 and 9662 of 2000 DATE: - - 2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos. 9460 and 9662 of 2000 PD Judgment for perusal of Hon’ble Sri Justice B Prakash Rao [1] (1996) 7 SCC 481 [2] 2005 (1) Cecisions Today (SC) 605 [3] (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943 [4] (2009) 5 SCC 193 [5] Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999 and batch