IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT :SANGALOR1A:,_':"'H._V_
DATED THIS TI-IE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2:369.' .»_. A'
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, _ , T
AND, _ V
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'rIcE:"v,G.smH_AHI:r
WRIT PETITION,NO.3236'8/SO99{S-CAT)"
BETWEEN ._
1. THE DIVISIONALPERSONNEL O'PPjIcER,
PERSONNEL BRANCH SEC,
SOUTH WESTERI'i RAILWAY;._
BANGALORE -550 0:23. ,-
2. THE U'N1ON1OP"--1N«I)IA, _ -
REP. BY. ITS GE.NERAL"MAPIA§3ER,
SOUTH WESTERN R"A1Lw'Ay,'
I-IUBLI~--580.,020, ' PETITIONERS
(BR SR1. j3EvAD,A,S, SR,"AD.V.«'A/W SMT. K.S. ANASUYA DEVI
FOR /Sf' NYAY,A2\«IITRA ADVOCATES)
AND' V' ' %
- SHRI S'; ,SRIvALI.NOA:M,
"~S;'O K. SUBRAM/_xN--1AN,
AGED ABOIJTHAS YEARS,
.. _, CASUAL 'LABOUR, SBC DIVN,
_ .,S'OU'JfH WESTERN RAILWAY,
'~._R/.O;« ea/.45S_, KOLAIYAMMAN KOVIL
. STREET, 'I'ALAVAI PATTI POST,
g"SALEM EDISTRICT - 636 302. RESPONDENT
5′
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN O.A. No. 467/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CAT,
BANGALORE BENCH AND ON CONSIDERATION OI~?”‘1vT1IE..A’
MATTER. QUASH THE ORDER OF CAT, EANOALOR;E*«–BEN__CH___
DTD 06.05.09 IN O.A. NO. 467/2007 VIDE ANNEX–A AN-D DISMISW 0-
O.A. NO. 467/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ANDV1’ETC–._;’~ _
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING U25 I«*ORORI:>’ER’S,_
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F’OLL’OWING:’–
oRnERf
(Delivered by. .)
This Writ petition is filed’ Personnel
Officer, South WeSvteI.~ni_’ respondent in
Original App_licationv.”No:.:4-6’f,(:2Q,Q7 [on the file of the Central
AdministrativeTribimal'”..:(11ei*einafter referred to as ‘CAT’)
Bangalore.{iBer1chI Bangalolire, being aggrieved by the order
cilia:/53 _QF6.0SC.??..OFi(4)”9._ wherein, the CAT has allowed the
appli’CatiO_nCA the prayer of the applicant by
directingF”‘the—-V:respondent No.1–the first appellant herein to
exercise of absorption of I:1’.x.CL’s against the
F.”.’*.._Vav.ailaIa:le Group ‘D’ posts in the manner explained in
5″
paragraph—-16 of the order within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent ”
3. The challenge made in this writ petition
the one raised and considered by this iCourt
No.29767/2009, wherein this Court, bv’.a}’1.etai1ed {ietee1* .
1831 November 2009 has disposed”–of”the In
the said writlpetition itiifis’ o:b’se1’vedu_las’ hereunder:
“10. The’ itnaterial on record would
clearly that’_dia_te’of’ birth of the respondent-
appiieem beforelithepifribunal is 25 / 12 / 1955 and
initially engaged as casual labour on
~L’_’,.The material on record would
.i’e1prther.lsiiir;:vv’ that even as per the intimation sent
petitioner herein, the name of the
applicant was shown in the live register when the
intirnation was sent on 22/ 7/ 2003 as per
llinnexure ‘A-3’ annexed to the application. it is
“clearly stated that the name of the applicant is
available in the live / supplementary! register and
he has been already asked to attend for screening
on 30/12/2004 and 31/12/2004 at Railway
Institute, Bangalore. Further contents
Annexure ‘.A-5′ would clearly show that in th’e§i_list’i’- ‘T ‘
of Casual Labourers eligible is
entered in the live register and[thie”Iia_n:e of
applicant has also been shown. theiplfacti
that applicant had been called” for”screeningi{forVV
absorption of casual labourerisgthat’
has been found in the live not disputed
by the applicant. I-Iow_e’ver,, letters
Annexures ‘A–lf’to ‘A;s3″‘were”cancelled”since the
educational hadiiiibeen prescribed for
absorption’, for the purpose of
absorption! andllivould only in case of initial
app~;)’intment.~-. Z it
The i”rr1ate’rial on record would clearly
‘ show is no merit in the contention of
ii the.,petiti_oneif”that the applicants were called for
screen.i’n’g»o’n1y for the purpose of preparing fresh
live register as the intimation would fairly show
asiiifireferred to above that the name of the
‘applicant had already been entered in the live
” “register and he had been called for absorption of
casual labourers. The only ground upon which
the petitioners seems to have rejected the claim of V K
the applicant for absorption is age limit.
clear from the Railway Board Master Circ’u:lari.tVlV:
No.38 envisaged at Para. 17.9 as .follows:~;’ M it
“At the time of screening of casual.
labour relaxation in page “should be .
automatic if it is established that the
individual was within the,prescnbed’ag’e
limit and had been more__or-.less regularly V.
working. In old’ ‘cases; wlriere*.the age
limit was not obseruepd, re%_l’axat’ion”o_f age
should be considered i’V’sympat’liejtic’a,lly.
The cpos, prams} and, the “Chief
Engineers'{Qbnstruc:tia~h) ‘are Competent to
grant. reIl_a,ra’tion in age”); .
12. The” rain; thijit Capos, o’Riii”5 and the Chief
Engineers ‘(Constr1:iction)””‘ar’e’ competent to grant
relaxationpginade is.not’disputed by the petitioner.
Further, having’ regard to the fact that the case of
theapzplicant beforetthe Tribunal is for absorption
‘ and.no_t’for, initial appointment. What is required
tobe is as to whether the appointment
of “”«cas1;£al.VAlabour was Within the prescribed age
limit ” when initially recruited as a casual labour
” and-.the fact that when the petitioner was initially
Ziengiaged as a casual labour, he was within the age
” -“limit was not disputed as the date of birth of the
applicant is 25/ 12/ 1955 and initial engagement is
on 16/8/1979. The applicant has also
substantiated before the Tribunal that though his
name was found in the register he was not
engaged and persons who were junior to .;.
the list were engaged and therefore, the .4
after detail consideration of ‘ ;the”above.y
material on record has held that the séllipplicatioiilpof ” is
the applicant for abs’or’ption “is V
erroneously and issued directions to cor’np_eele’te the
exercise of absorption’~~..of Labourers
against the available in the
manner explainedin otztiabove.
‘ the above said facts of
the case,’*–t.he circular issued by the petitioner and
Master tCircular”No.4V8 and also having regard to
«…Athve§:._fac,te».thvat material on record clearly show that
inarrze applicant had already been included
HthevV’liite–__register and his application has been
rejeotecl” on the ground of age and absorption
has been declined only on the ground of age,
is clearly erroneous and contrary to the
circular issued by the petitioner as referred to
“above. The Tribunal has issued direction as
impugned in this writ petition. That having regard
to the above said material on record, we_NareVu’f7s.
satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal ‘
justified and does not suffer froth
illegality as to call for interferehce jefiereise.
the writ jurisdiction of this Courtand._accord_ihgvly*, V
we hold that the writ petivti–c)_i*’1″~.V_iMs devQid.VoI*,rrieVri’t”‘
and pass the following: —
The Writ Petitiiént
4. Hence,; tliigsjii~:.d_ii’ig”‘rendered by us in Writ
Petition No.s2976?~s;.r2deas (disposed””so’1″‘: on 18-11-2009), as
referred to tsulpra’, is also liable to be
dismissed. Acclordirigly-,._ ‘dismissed. No order as to costs.
. Yes/No
i7d”Sn§/
Web ‘Host: Yes / No