IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16485 of 2010 1. The Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway, Hazipur 2. The General Manager (Personnel) East Central Railway, Hazipur 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur 4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Sonepur ...Petitioners Versus 1. Baleshwar Rai S/O Sri Bakodar Rai C/O Sri Kedar Nath Sinha, Ex- S.D.O., R/O Anandpuri Bibiganj, Near Railway Pani Tanki, Ward No.-7, Muzaffarpur 2. Kaushal Kishore S/O Sri Ramchandra Singh R/O Usha Niwas, Near Durga Mandir, New Chandmari, Motihari (East Champaran) 3. Ujendra Kumar S/O Sri Munshi Prasad R/O near Railway Station, Motihari (East Champaran) 4. Bir Bahadur S/O Sri Ganesh Mahto R/O Mankarariya Tola Bishshi, P.O.- Mankaririya, Distt.- East Champaran ..Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Bidhyachal Singh, advocate For the respondents: Mr. M. P. Dixit, advocate ------------------------- 16 18-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order dated 18-2-2010 learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench has allowed O.A. No. 471 of 2008 preferred by four respondents and has quashed the order dated 4-8-2008 whereby the Railway had rejected the claim of the respondents/ applicants for absorption against group D posts. The Tribunal has directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicants for their absorption. 2 No doubt the Railway has been following the scheme of absorbing casual labourers, ex casual labourers but those schemes, earlier in force, were for the workers of Railway only. It appears that the scheme was relaxed even to include casual labourers engaged by co-operatives formed for the benefit of Railway personnel. The respondents belong to such category of casual labourers. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now, as indicated in paragraph 5 to rejoinder to additional counter affidavit, Railway authorities have reiterated that the Railway has decided to follow the principle of law settled in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. In other words the Railway has undertaken before this court on affidavit that it shall not take resort to the method of regularizing casual labourers or ex casual labourers for making permanent appointment on regular posts by bypassing the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. On behalf of the petitioners it has further 3 been submitted that on facts there is no dispute that the concerned respondents are not casual labourers of the Railway but engaged by co-operatives formed for the benefit of Railway personnel. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that because in the past Railway has regularized a number of casual labourers and subsequent amendment in the appointment policy allowed consideration of claims of personnel like the respondents who have been engaged by the co-operatives formed for the benefit of Railway personnel, the case of the respondents has rightly been ordered for reconsideration. He further submitted that even in the case of Uma Devi the Supreme Court has directed that those who have been working for more than ten years without the aid of any judicial order or stay order, their cases may be considered for regularization. It has been pointed out that in paragraph 3 of the impugned order the Tribunal has noticed that the respondents have rendered service for more than 15 years and they have been screened by the authorities 4 and are fit to be absorbed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has replied that the facts mentioned in paragraph 3 of the impugned order are submissions which were advanced on behalf of applicants and not findings of the Tribunal. Having considered the relevant issue in totality, we are of the considered view that even if the Railway has woken up late, they should not be prevented from following the healthy practice of recruiting the personnel for the permanent service of the Railway only in accordance with the procedure which is fair and gives opportunity to all the eligible persons to compete for the posts. Further, we find that the policy of Railway to absorb people in the Railway although they were engaged for working in co- operatives is without any rationale and justification. This is besides the apparent lacunae in the whole procedure which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. In our considered view, being personnel of a 5 co-operative which may be for the benefit of Railway personnel, the respondents cannot have any legal or constitutional right to be made permanent employees of the Railway. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)