u»w~ i8} HI6H COURT OF CHHATTI$€ARH AT BILASPUR Wri'f Pefifion No.890/2001 CQRAM: Hon‘bie Shr'l $.RNayak, Chief Jus‘rice & Hon'ble Shri D.R.Deshmukh, J. PeTiTioner G. Surya Pmkash Rae, aged abouf 58 years, SIO L/G. Adinamyana, Refir'ed Elec'h‘icai Driver c/o 6. Venka+ Rae, near Bhagchum Safh Buildirig, Budhwari Main Road, Dongargarh, Disfr-ict Rajnandgaon. Versus 1. Unkm af India, represen‘red Through Secretary, Rummy Board, Rm! Bhawan, New Delhi. 2’ The Genera! Manager, Soufh Eas‘rer‘n Raifway', Garden Ranch, Caicuf‘m. 3. The Divisional Raiiway Manager, Soufh Easiern Railway, Nagpur- (Maharashfm) 4. 5r. Divisienai Mechanicai Engineer (P), 5.E.Raiiway, Nagpur (Maharashtra) 5. 5F. Divisiomi Personnel Officer, S.E.Raiiway, PO. Nagpur (Maharashfra) Resganden‘i’s Shri Ashish Shrivasmva, iearned counsel whh Shri Amrh'o Das for the peih‘ioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, iearned counsei wifh 5hri Gnanshyam Pa'rei for 'i'i‘ie respondents No.3 To 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 04.07.2006) The foilowing orai order of ‘i'he Cour? was passed by 5.R.NA¥AK. £3. The pe’fii’ioner, who was an empioyee of ihe Railways, when he was serving, sough‘l‘ appoin'l'men'l‘ ‘io his son 'i’o a suii’able posi’ in ihe Qailway es‘iablish'menf on fhe basis of an alleged 1981 Policy providing 182 far appGin‘fmem 1'0 The chi!dren of 'fhe “ioya! workers" afr‘rhe Raifways. Tha'i’ ciaim of 141a pe‘fi‘fioner was Fe‘fused by The Depar‘fmen‘r. FeeHng aggrieved by 'i’he said ac‘rion 9f fhe Depar‘rmenf, ‘rhe pe'l'ifioner pre‘ferr‘ed Grigiml ~Applica+ion No.549/1995 before i+1e Cen'h'a! Admimsfm‘i’iva Tribuna!, Jabalpur‘ (far shor‘r ‘C.A.T.'). The prayer of We $efi+§orer +0 issue a direc’Hon 1’9 fhe Deparfmen‘r 'l'a uppoin’r his son 1‘0 a sui‘mble pas-r under The Layai Workers Quafu envisaged in 1981 paiicy was mi speeificaiiy considered by The CAT. The C.A.T. did he? gran? direcfian sough'r by 'rhe pefifioner +0 ihe Rdiiways 1‘0 appoin‘i’ 'i’he pe‘fifioner’s son 1'0 my aphroprid‘i’e pas? under The Loyai Wcrkers QuoTa. Hence, This WriT PeTiTidn. 2. We have heard The learned counsel for The parTies. The plank of The ciaim sf The peTiTiOher is ThaT There exisTed a poiicy in The year 1981 praviding for appainTmenT Ta The chiidren of Iayai workers, and in Terms of The said paiicy The peTiTioner shouid be regarded as a ioyai worker, because, he did hoT parTicipaTe in The sTrikes during The years 197445 and 1979-81. The respandenTs No.3 To 5 have Tiled Their reTurn’ On page 6 of The reTurn, in referenee TO para 5.2 iT is sTaTed Thus: “In reference Ta para 5.2:“ The avermenfs made in This para are denied. There is no documenT on record which indicaTes ThaT There was any policy GT The answering respondenTs To provide appdinTmenT To The wards of The ioyal workers. IT is again caTegoricaiiy reiTeraTed ThoT There is no scheme of The answering respondenTs or The Raiiway Board providing appoinTmenT To The wards ofioyai workers afTer The year 1977 and so The peTiTioner cannoT claim and be granTed any benefiT for The sTrike of The year 1981. IT is also perTinenT To poinT ouT ThaT The appoinTmenT orders filed by The peTiTioner do noT indéca'fz fha‘f fhe appoinfmen'rs have been made under lax/u! warkers quota scheme." Furthermore, if i5 aiso aimed on page 5 which reads as under: (i “w. I? is aisa {pacifically denied ‘Hmf any appoimmen? has been given £n fhe year 1981 as alleged by fhe petitioner X r’ under fhe loyal workers quoh: for H13 sfrike of fhe year 1981. The scheme and insfr-ucfims as per Annexure-R/3(1) were firm”)! wi'rhdmwn wef. 25/4/1977 vide Annexure— R/3(2). 3. The pefi’rioner‘ has not praduced fhe so-caHed policy issued by “rhe Raiiways in fhe year 1981. However, if is sfafed The? in simiim' circumsfance chiidren of cer‘min empioyees have been offered appaini’men? under fhe Layai Workers Quoi'a. In supper? of +ha+ pied, appainfmem order issued by ihe Divisional Personnel Officer, Soui’h Easiehn Railway, Nagpur, dafed 9.7.1981 is produced as Annexure A-IO a? page 34. We have perused Thai documeni’. From iha’r document ii ' l could no? be said iha'r “ihose ihree perscns were appoin‘red under ihe Leyui Workers Quo‘in. Be 'iha‘i as i‘i' may, fhe asseri’ion made by fhe pe’iiiianer is clearly denied by ihe respondenis N03 To 5 in iheir reiurn. Since ihe pei’h‘ianer has u’r‘ierly failed f0 esiablish 'iha‘l rhere exis‘i’ed a policy “fa affer appoin‘i'men'r +0 ihe children of loyal workers under ihe so-called policy of 1981, granfing relief ‘fo The pei’ifioner wauld noi ariSe. 4. The wrii' pe‘rifion is devaid of merii and if is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ‘ Judge Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh f" ' i sdl- i Chief Justice w \