IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8837 of 2011. 1.Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Late Raghu Nath Singh, resident of Village-Jauhari Bazar, P.O.-Hazipur, P.S.-Town and District Vaishali at Hajipur. 2. Punit Sahani, son of Basu Sahani, resident of Village and P.O.- Goeigama, District-Vaishali at Hazipur. 3. Ram Dayal Mahto, son of Shiv Nandan Mahto, resident of Village- Thatmag Bujuro, P.O.Saray, P.S.-Hazipur Sadar, District-Vaishali at Hazipur. 4. Murari, son of Hirawan, resident of Flat No. 1, Road No. 12, Rajendra Nagar, Patna. 5. Laxman Pandit, son of Jauni Pandit, resident of village and P.O. Govind-nak, Kharika, P.S.-Sonpur, District-Saran at Chapra. 6. Sheo Nath Rai, son of Sakaldip Rai, resident of village-Sahar Diara, P.O. & P.S.-Sonpur, District-Saran at Chapra……………..Petitioners. Versus 1.The Union Of India through the General Manager, E.C.Railway Hajipur. 2.The Chef Administrative Officer (Con) E.C.Railway Mahendrughat, Patna. 3.The Chief Personnel Officer, E.C.Railway, Hajipur. 4.The Divisional Railway Manager. E.C.Railway, Sonpur. 5.The Deputy Chief Manager (Con.) E.C.Railway, Samastipur. 6.The Assistant Engineer,(Con) E.C.Railway, Samastipur …………… Respondents. ---------------------------------- For the petitioners : Mr. Shravan Kumar, Sr.Adv. M/s Dinesh Maharaj, Rajiv Nayan Singh, Prakash Shekhar, Kumar and Satish Kumar Singh, Advs. For the Respondents : Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr.Adv. Mr.Mahesh Prasad, Adv. 4. 9.12.2011 Heard the parties. Initially we were quite reluctant to entertain the claim of the appellants which has been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order dated 31st March 2011 (Annexure-19). The reluctance was mainly on account of apparent inordinate delay on the part of appellants in moving the Tribunal in the year 2009 2 seeking a direction to appoint/absorb them against the post of gangman (Group-D) forthwith on the basis of seniority position shown in the seniority list of casual workman of 1985. But we were persuaded to give a closer look to the claim in view of the Supreme Court orders annexed as Annexure-1 and 2. Annexure-1 contains the judgment and order dated 18th April 1985 in the case of Indarpal Yadav and others vs. Union of India and others in which on the principle of “First come, last go” a direction was issued “To prepare a list of project casual laborer with reference to each division of each Railway and then start absorbing those with the longest service”. Annexure-2 contains an order of the Supreme Court dated 22nd April 1985 in a batch of cases – Prahlad Singh and others Vs. Union of India. In that order the Apex Court noted an apprehension expressed on behalf of workman that Railway may deny absorption on the plea that there are no vacancies. The Apex Court observed that such apprehension could not be legitimate because the directions given by the Court were clear that the appellant/petitioners should be absorbed as temporary workman consistent with the scheme approved in the judgment. It was explained that those who have put in longer service shall have higher 3 priority and those who are juniors and yet holding the post will have to make rooms for the seniors. From the stand of the Railway before the Tribunal and in the counter affidavit filed in this Court it transpires that admittedly in the year 1989, the persons juniors to the petitioners in the list of 2936 persons of the year1985, were engaged by the Deputy Chief Engineer/Con/Samastipur but the petitioners were not absorbed on the plea that they were not available. No details have been mentioned as to how their availability was tried to be procured and how the juniors became available. Be that as it may, again in 1999 the Railway published two notices for submission of details of service supported by documents, including casual service card issued by the Railway. The case of the petitioners is that they had sent all the details for posts of Samastipur pursuant to paper publication on 15th July 1999. The other news-paper notice was dated 29th October 1999 for other places. The petitioners did not respond to the 2nd notice. The Railway claim to have engaged 246 Ex-casual laborers who allegedly appeared within the prescribed date but no action was taken in case of the petitioners and may be of others who responded to the first news paper notice dated 15th July 1999 which was for Samastipur. Thereafter 4 the petitioners pursued their claim without success. They have alleged that persons junior to them in the seniority list were engaged. This fact is not in dispute. The petitioners have further alleged that extent of past service or experience in several other cases were manipulated and enhanced to give preference in absorption or re- employment. This allegation has been denied. However, we do not deem it necessary to keep this case pending for enquiry into the aforesaid allegation. In our considered view, the petitioners cannot be now given parity with those who were engaged long back in the year 1989 since they did not approach the Tribunal or this Court promptly in the matter. It is not in dispute that some contempt applications filed in the Supreme Court bore no result. However, on account of transaction of absorption or re-employment pursuant to the notice in the year 1999, in our view the claim of the petitioners which is based upon the directions of Supreme Court should be considered by the Railway authorities as per law and the following directions. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners on the basis of facts as existing on 15th July 1999, the date of notice, for the purpose of considering 5 their eligibility and if they are found suitable, then to absorb or re-employ them in service only from the date they join and start working on the concerned post. This exercise should be completed within a period of 3 months from to- day. It goes without saying that the petitioners may be required by the authorities of the Railway to submit the details of service etc. once again, if these details submitted pursuant to the notice dated 15th July 1999 are not available. We have already indicated at the beginning of this judgment our initial reluctance to interfere in the matter. That was on account of delay and the fact, of which judicial notice can be taken, that the petitioners must by now be men of advanced age. Hence, we make it clear that this order is confined to the petitioners and the Railway will not be required to reopen the cases of others only on account of alleged parity. The impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal stands modified accordingly. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Jay/ ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)