:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.1712 OF 2003 NO.1712 OF 2003 NO.1712 OF 2003 1. Union of India, through The General Manager (C.Rly), Headquarters office, Mumbai CST, Mumbai - 400 001. 2. Divisional Rly.Manager (C.Rly), Bhusawal, Central Railway. 3. Chief Workshop Manager (Engg.Workshop), Central Railway Workshop, Manmad. & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Allwyn John Shikare Ex-Casual Labour (MRCL), Central Railway, Manmad, Dist.Nashik residing at Navajivan Housing Society, Anand Wadi, Manmad, Dist.Nashik ..Respondent Mrs.Neeta Masurkar for petitioners. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 16TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 16TH FEBRUARY,2009 (JUDGMENT (JUDGMENT (JUDGMENT : PER V.C.DAGA,J.) : PER V.C.DAGA,J.) : PER V.C.DAGA,J.) . Heard. . Perused petition. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 13th June,2002 passed by the Central Administration Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") in Original Application No.222 :2: of 2001 directing petitioner to declare the result of respondent and consider his case for appointment, if found to be successful, reserving opportunity in favour of petitioner to prove misconduct after holding due enquiry, in accordance with law. THE THE THE FACTS FACTS FACTS 2. The factual matrix reveal that respondent had secured employment as casual labourer under the Bridge Foremen at Manmad, in the petitioner Railway Administration. After some years, he was engaged as monthly rated casual labourer. Subsequently, by an order dated 17th May,1993 his services were terminated. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of termination, respondent approached the Tribunal challenging order of termination contending it to be bad, illegal and arbitrary. The said challenge was resisted by the Railway Administration contending that he had secured employment in the year 1985 on the basis of fake casual labour service card and that this fact came to light in the year 1993. Hence, his services were terminated. 4. In rejoinder, the said assertion was challenged by respondent by producing notice issued to all the labourers terminating their services along :3: with list of MRCL staff working under that particular project. 5. The names of 35 persons were reflected in the above list. The name of applicant was at Sr.No.23, which gave clear indication that 22 persons were above the respondent whereas 12 persons were below him. 6. The Tribunal, at that time found no material to show that juniors were retained by the Department. Consequently, termination was held to be legal and proper. However, directions were issued holding that a casual labourer whose services have been terminated, shall be entitled for regularisation under the scheme of Regularisation framed by the Railway Administration subject to the eligibility and requisite qualifications mentioned in the scheme of Regularisation Scheme. 7. So far as the question of bogus labour card was concerned, it was not adjudicated upon holding it to be irrelevant for the purpose of decision. The Railway Administration was satisfied with this order. The said order was not challenged further. It became final and conclusive operating as res-judicata between the parties. The Review Petition filed against the order dated 24th November, 1999 was also rejected. In other words defence of bogus card came to be rejected. :4: 8. The respondent, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal referred to hereinabove, on 24th November, 2009 made an application to seek regularisation, though on the said date he was not in service on account of his termination. His application for regularisation was not considered as such he again approached the Tribunal vide Original Application No.222 of 2001 challenging act of non consideration of his case for regularisation by Railway Administration contending that the policy of regularisation framed by the Railway Board obliges the Railway Administration to maintain Live Register of the casual labourers, who worked or working under their respective Divisions. The name of the respondent was included in the said Live Register. He, thus, urged before the Tribunal that his name ought to have been considered by the Railway Administration for regularisation of his service. 9. This Original Application was opposed by petitioners by filing reply and pointing out that respondent had secured his appointment as a casual labourer with Central Railway on the basis of bogus casual labour service card, as such, he was not entitled for the said benefit. The said submission did not find favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal, ultimately, by the impugned order, directed that the petitioners should declare the result of respondent and consider his case for appointment, if found to be :5: successful. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of the challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. CONSIDERATION CONSIDERATION CONSIDERATION : : : 10. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners pressed into service, the solitary contention that the appointment as a casual labourer was obtained by respondent in the year 1985 on the basis of fake casual labour service card. This contention was though specifically not negatived by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, the said defence raised by Railway Administration to resist Original Application was not considered to be relevant and the relief was granted in favour of respondent directing the Railway Administration to consider his case for regularisation in accordance with the service eligibility criteria. At that time, it was open for petitioners to challenge that order contending that no such directions could be issued in view of the alleged misconduct committed by respondent. However, no such challenge was set up. If that be so, that order having become final and conclusive, now on the same ground cannot be used against the respondent to non suit him. This ground is not available for petitioners to get the impugned order set aside. :6: 11. In view of above, the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. In the aforesaid view of the matter, no case is made out for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. The petition is, therefore devoid of any substance. It is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. (MRIDULA (MRIDULA (MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)