IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2319 of 2010 1. Ranjit Kumar, Son of Shri Satya Narayan Prasad, residing in Railway Qr. No.T 21/B, Railway Station Darbhanga (Bihar) 2. Sunil Kumar Prasad, Son of Shri Ram Prasad Roy, resident of Rly. Qr No. Loco/113/G near Mal Godown Gate, Lalbagh, District-Darbhanga (Bihar). 3. Raj Kumar Shrivastava, Son of Shri Bhawnath Prasad Resident of Mohalla –Laxmisagar (Hathikhana), P.O. Laxmisagar, District- Darbhanga (Bihar) 4. Amrendra Kumar, Son of Shri Kapileshwar Roy, resident of Mohalla and P.O. Laxmisagar, District-Darbhanga(Bihar). 5. Laxman Prasad Singh, Son of late Charitar Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Manipur, P.O. Sari, District- Samastipur (Bihar). 6. Bishwajeet Kumar Shandwar, Son of Shri Manmohan Sinha, resident of Mohalla- Sarfallaganj, P.O. City Post Office, District- Darbhanga(Bihar) ------ Petitioners. Versus 1. The Union of India represented through the General Manager, East Central Railway, at & P.O. Hajipur, District- Vaishali (Bihar). 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Samastipur Division, Samastipur (Bihar) 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, E.C. Railway, Samastipur Division, Samastipur (Bihar). 4. The Divisional, Railway Manager (Commercial), E.C. Railway Samastipur Division, Samastipur ----- Respondents. ---------- 2. 10.2.2010 Heard Mr. Amar Nath Jha for the petitioners, and Mr. Naresh Dixit for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure- 15), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 335 of 2008 ( Ranjeet Kumar & Five 2 others Vs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby the claims set up by the original applicants for regularization of their services in class D post of the Railway Establishment of the Government of India has been rejected. Under scheme of Railways, the petitioners claim to have worked between 10-15 days on volunteer basis for which they were paid out of pocket expenses of Rs.8/- per days. The scheme was abandoned and they were terminated from working on volunteer basis leading to large number of original applications all over the country. In one such batch of Special Leave Petitions bearing Special Leave Petition Nos. 17971-71A of 1993(Union of India & Ors. Vs. Belal Aahmad & Ors.), and the analogous petitions, were disposed of by the Supreme Court by order dated 27.7.1995 (Annexure-3), in terms of an earlier order of the Supreme Court in an identical matter in Civil Appeal No.1015 of 1995, and quoted in the said order of the Supreme Court of 27.7.1995 (Annexure-3): “Therefore, this is a special type of status which is conferred by the tribunal, perhaps under the establishment rules of the railways. But what is important is that the Tribunal desired that these respondents should be considered for Group D post as and when vacancies arise. The ultimate 3 effect of this is that the respondents will continue to work as volunteers on payment of out of pocket allowance at the rate of Rs.8/- per day, but as and when vacancies arise in Group D post, they should be considered for absorption in accordance with the inter se seniority between the volunteers. Nothing further than that is contemplated by the impugned order of the Tribunal ….. In view of the above since the position now stands clarified and any doubt which existed now stands removed by this order, nothing further remains to be done and we do hope that the question of absorption of the respondents, if not completed by now, will be completed expeditiously. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.” It is thus evident that the Supreme Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the cases of such persons for absorption against group D post when vacancies arose. The petitioners approached the learned Tribunal by filing separate original applications on three occasions wherein the order of the Supreme Court was directed to be implemented. These were chased by the contempt applications before the learned Tribunal. The respondent authorities passed the following order: “bl eaMy esa orZeku esa fVdV tkWap deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k i;kZIr gS vkSj vfrfjDr ekuo cyksa dks yxkus dk vksSfpR; ,oa vko’;drk ugh gS@” 4 The Tribunal in the subsequent original application of the petitioner herein directed the authorities to dispose of the matter by a reasoned order. Accordingly the respondent authorities passed a reasoned order dated 16.4.2008 (Annexure-14), and same is reproduced hereinbelow for facility of quick reference: “Ref: Direction passed by Hon’ble CAT/Patna in O.A. No.451/06 Ranjit Kumar and others Vrs.UOI and others on 28.12.07. 1. Hon’bl CAT/Patna vide their directive of 28.12.2007 has directed the respondents to treat this O.A. as a fresh representation and consider the matter once again and dispose it of by issuing a reasoned order. 2. In compliance of the Hon’ble CAT/ Patna order dt. 28.12.2007 the referred judgment, relevant records alongwith Railway Board instructions. The scheme of VTC stands discontinued and is not in vague presently and therefore utilization of VTC does arise since the scheme does not exist any more, hence the engagement and posting of VTCs against vacancy will be unlawful. 3. Shri Ranjit Kumar by his own version had worked for 28 days in 1983 and 10 days in 1984 total 38 days(only) while applicant no.4 and 5 have worked 02 days only in the year 1986 as VTC at the rate of Rs.8/- per day as pocket allowance per days at Darbhanga, Laheriasarai, Madhubani Rly. Stations and have left the work much earlier before closure of the scheme. 4. From the record it is mentioned here that the reasoned and speaking order dt. 5.9.2000 has already been given to the applicant in the light of the order dt. 30.3.1999 passed in O.A. 318/96 and clarified that as per extant rule it is not possible for 5 the Railway Administration to re- engage them. 5. After considering at the documents, rules and judgement pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court and different High Court, Principal Bench, CAT/New Delhi and other CAT I am of the considered view that the demand for re-engagement is not based on rule and also not feasible to re- engage them as VTC and hence it is rejected. 6. This disposes of the direction dated 28.12.2007 of Hon’ble CAT/Patna in referred O.A.” It is thus evident that absorption of the petitioners depends on the requirement of the Railways, existence of vacancies, and it is inherent in the situation that it also depends on the continuous functioning and performance of the candidates. Once the authorities found that there was no requirement in category of class D employee, the claims of the petitioners come to an end. There are other factors also operating against the petitioners, namely, they have approached the Tribunal repeatedly by filing original applications and contempt applications and do not seem to rest until and unless they are able to obtain orders either from the authorities or the Court. We deprecate such an approach. The courts can not be burdened with such flow of litigations from persons whose claim appears to be stale. 6 We must deal with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that one Sanjay Kumar Singh, a similarly circumstanced employee, has been absorbed and the cases of the petitioners have been completely ignored. In spite of repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to substantiate the same. It appears to us that the writ petition does not lay the requisite factual foundation for the argument that the petitioners on the one hand, and Sanjay Kumar Singh, on the other, are similarly circumstanced persons. The petitioners are reminded of the judgment reported in (1988)SCC 534, Bharat Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, with respect to pleadings and onus of proof in writ proceedings. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. We, however, refrain from doing so for the reason that the petitioners are seeking employment. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)