IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20/07/2005 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM W.P. No. 8173 of 2001 and W.P.Nos., 1411 and 1417 of 2000 and W.P.M.P.No. 2097 of 2000 W.P.No. 8173/2001 1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Railway Board, Railway Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras-3. 3. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madras. 4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madras Division, Chennai-3. 5. The Division Railway Manager, Madras Division, Southern Railway, Madras. .. Petitioners. -Vs- 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras. 2. K. Yesudasan. .. Respondents.
W.P.No. 1411/2000
1. Union of India,
represented by its Secretary,
Railway Board, Railway Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2. The General Manager,
Southern Railway, Madras-3.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Madras.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Chennai Division, Southern Railway,
Chennai-3.
5. The Assistant Engineer,
Assistant Engineer SPE, Southern Railway,
Soolurpettai. .. Petitioners.
Vs.
1. S. Neelakandan,
2. V. Dhanapal,
3. T. Ramachandran,
4. Dhara Srinivasal,
5. Dara Pullaiah,
6. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai. .. Respondents.
W.P.No. 1417/2000.
1. Union of India,
represented by its Secretary,
Railway Board, Railway Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2. The General Manager,
Southern Railway, Madras-3.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Madras.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Chennai Division, Southern Railway,
Chennai-3.
.. Petitioners.
Vs.
1. Manickam,
2. Palanivlelu,
3. K. Kesavan,
4. P. Masilamani,
5. V. Viswanathan,
6. Punniyakodi,
7. A. Ahmed Basha,
8. M. Natarajan,
9. V.N. Velayudham,
10. Gandhi,
11. Srinivasan,
12. R. Duraiveli,
13. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai.
.. Respondents.
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of Writs of Certiorari, calling for entire records of the
impugned order in O.A.No. 784/98 dated 8-1-2001; O.A.No. 648/97 dated
10-3-99; and O.A.No. 371/96 dated 10-3-1999 respectively on the file of
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, and quash the same.
!Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, Standing counsel for
Railways :- For petitioner in W.P.No.
8173/2001.
Mr. V.G. Sureshkumar:- For petitioners in
W.P.Nos. 1411 and 1417/2000.
^Mr. R. Ramesh:- For 2nd Respondent in
W.P.8173/2001.
No appearance for respondents in W.P.Nos.
1411m and 1417/2000.
:COMMON ORDER
(Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,)
Southern Railway and its Officers are the petitioners in the above
Writ Petitions. W.P.No. 8173 of 2001 has been filed against the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras dated 08-01-2001 made in O.A.No.
784/98 wherein the Tribunal directed the Railway administration to consider
the case of the applicant for regularisation under the decasualisation scheme.
Against the grant of similar directions in O.A.Nos. 648/97 and 371/96, the
Railway administration has also preferred W.P.Nos. 1411 and 1417 of 2000.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. First we shall consider W.P.No. 8173 of 2001. In this case, the
second respondent herein, namely, K. Yesudasan filed O.A.No. 784/1998 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying for a direction to
regularise his service in the scale of Rs.950-1500 on par with juniors who
were regularised in the decasualisation vacancies in the scale of Rs.950-1500
and grant of all consequential benefits. It is the case of the applicant that
he was originally engaged as a casual labourer on daily wage basis. He was
subsequently granted temporary status with effect from 11-3-1977 and
thereafter he was granted C.P.C scale of pay in scale Rs.196-232 from casual
labourer. He was promoted as C.P.C Looter in the scale of pay of Rs.950
-1500. Previously he was appointed as Gangman with effect from 16-3-89 in the
pay scale of Rs.775-1025. Thereafter, the applicant became a regular railway
servant. The applicant was promoted as Senior Gangman with effect from
01-04-89 in the scale of pay of Rs.800-1150. It is the claim of the applicant
that when the department had implemented the scheme of decasualisation of
casual labourer, he was excluded from the decasualisation list even though he
was senior to many casual labourers, who have been decasualised and
empanelled.
4. Before the Tribunal, Railway administration filed a reply stating
that the applicant belonged to a Trade i.e., Looter which does not figure in
the list of artisans grade and, therefore, his name cannot be considered for
extension of the benefit under the decasualisation scheme which was
implemented in 1992-93. It is also the claim of the Railway administration
that his application is barred by limitation.
5. The Tribunal, after finding that the Looter is a person who
effectively assists the Welder, is fit enough to classify as an Artisan,
directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation under
decasualisation scheme.
6. Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, Additional Central Government Standing
counsel, by drawing our attention to decasualisation scheme and also pointing
out that inasmuch as the applicant was a permanent employee i.e., Gangman in
the scale of pay of Rs.775-1025, he was not coming within the zone of
consideration with reference to the number of posts allotted as part of
decasualisation scheme, contended that the Tribunal committed an error in
passing the impugned order.
7. There is no dispute regarding the scheme, namely, decasualisation
scheme brought out by the Railway administration for the benefit of casuals
working in the Railways for several years. According to the Railway counsel,
the said scheme is applicable only to Artisans, namely, those who were engaged
in manual, mechanical skilled work. He also brought to our notice that the
artisans are engaged in the Engineering department in the following trades:(1)
Driver; (2) Hammerman; (3) Welder; (4) Fitter; (5) Moulder; (6) Carpenter; (7)
Bricklayer; (8) Blacksmith; (9) Painter; (10) Plumber. It is also the claim
of the Railway administration that inasmuch as the scheme does not envisage
Looter, the direction issued by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is also
brought to our notice that the decasualisation scheme should go to casual
labour artisans only and it should not be diverted to the employee in the
regular stream. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the reply statement
of the Railway administration filed before the Central Administrative
Tribunal. In para 4 it is stated that “… The name of the applicant was not
considered when absorption against posts created under decasualisation scheme
as he was permanent employee and he did not come within the zone of
consideration with reference to the number of posts allotted under the
decasualisation…”
Again, in the same paragraph, it is stated that “…As the applicant was
working as CPC Luter prior to his empanelment as gangman which is a non
standard post, he could not also be considered under para 1 ( c) which has not
been quashed by the Hon’ble Tribunal.” In para 6 (g) it is specifically stated
that “The respondents submit that none of the Gangmen were absorbed against
the posts sanctioned under decasualisation scheme, however, the Gangmen who
were absorbed on or after 1.1 .82 and previously holding the Artisans posts
(Standard) were considered in terms of para 1 (C) of CPO/MAS Lr. dt. 14-8-91
and it is further denied that none of the candidates who have been absorbed as
Artisan were not subjected to trade test…” Though the applicant has filed a
counter disputing the same, inasmuch as the information given by the
department is based on the records, as rightly pointed out by the learned
Additional Central Government Standing counsel, the same cannot be ignored.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant information in the
reply affidavit. Inasmuch as the post ” Looter” has not been included in the
scheme of decasualisation and also taking note of the specific assertion in
the affidavit that the applicant was a Gangman in the scale of pay of
Rs.950-1025 on the date of the scheme, we are of the view that the Tribunal
has committed an error in issuing direction for absorption in terms of the
scheme for decasualisation. We are also satisfied that the Tribunal failed to
note that the applicant was not eligible to be considered for absorption in
the decasualisation scheme as he was permanently absorbed as Gangman when the
decasualisation scheme was introduced. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed
out, the applicant was working only as C.P.C Lotter and could not be fitted in
the category of Welder for being eligible for consideration in the
decasualisation scheme and merely because he had assisted the Welder, he could
not be placed in the category of Welder. As rightly pointed out, the scheme
cannot be expanded by the Tribunal/Courts by giving liberal interpretation.
Though learned counsel appearing for the second respondent vehemently
contended that even now the second respondent is in the same scale of pay,
that may not be a ground to sustain the order of the Tribunal. However, the
second respondent herein is free to vindicate his grievance in respect of his
stagnation if any before the appropriate authority by making representation.
However, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 8 -1-2001 cannot be
sustained.
8. Coming to W.P.Nos. 1411 and 1417 of 2000, Mr. V.G. Sureshkumar,
learned counsel appearing for the Railway administration, has brought to our
notice that all the applicants/respondents herein were subsequently absorbed
and in such a circumstance, according to him, the applicants have no
grievance. He also brought to our notice various implementation orders
absorbing the applicants concerned. In the light of the above position, we
feel no further adjudication/orders are required in these two writ petitions.
9. Net result, Writ Petition No. 8173 of 2001 is allowed. Writ
Petition Nos. 1411 and 1417 of 2000 are disposed of on the above terms. No
costs. W.P.M.P.No. 2097/2000 is closed.
R.B.
Index:-Yes
Internet:- Yes
To:-
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras.