ORDER
Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. The issue involved and relief claimed being similar in all the three OAs, they are being disposed of by the following common order:
O.A. 686/2006
2. It is the case of the applicant in OA 686/2006 that he was engaged as a casual labour on 30-01-1978 under Inspector of Works, South Central Railway, Rajahmundry of Vijayawada division. He worked continuously upto 9.9.1978 i.e. 195 days without any break. He has enclosed copy of the casual labour card as Annexure A-2. It is, therefore, the contention of the applicant that since he has worked for 120 days he attained temporary status and is eligible to continue in service. However, the applicant was re-engaged as casual labour Safaiwala on 25.08.1979 and worked upto 10.09.1979 i.e. for a period of 15 days for Godavari Pushkaram. In support of his contention that he worked for 15 days he has enclosed a certificate as Annexure A-3. The applicant thereafter was not engaged and aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not engaging the applicant, he approached this Tribunal by filing the application seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to place his name in casual labour live register and further consider to re-engage him as CL/Substitute as and when vacancies of SC/ST arises against SC quota.
3. The applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ram Mohan v. Union of India and Ors. reported in ATJ 2002 (1) CAT 634. A copy of the judgment is enclosed as Annexure A-7 to the OA where the Tribunal has held that inclusion of name of a casual labourer in the Live Casual Labour Register is a continuous cause of action.
O.A. 688/2006
4. It is the case of the applicant in OA 688/2006 that he was engaged as casual labour in June 1980 under PWI/Vijayawada of South Central Railway and worked upto December, 1980 i.e. he worked for 185 days without any break. He has enclosed copy of CL card as Annexure A-1 to the OA. The applicant was engaged as casual labour on 10.11.1983 under PWI/Rajahmundry of South Central Railway and worked up to 9.1.1984 i.e. 61 days. It is, therefore, the contention of the applicant that he worked for 246 days and thereafter he joined as vendor helper in catering department in the year 1984 and continuously working as on date at Rajahmundry. In support of his contention he has enclosed his identity card as Annexure A-4. However, the said identity card shows no date to support the contention of the applicant that he is working till date. Applicant further submitted that Railway Board in its letter No. E(NG)II/96/ CL/61 dated 3.9.1996 has given clear instructions to regularise all the casual labourers and the Railway Board again issued instruction vide letter No. E(NG)II/ 96/CL/61 dated 8.4.1997 and the same was circulated by CPO/SC in Sr.Circular No. 99/1997 dated 19.6.1997. The said circular is enclosed as Annexure A-7 to the OA. It is the grievance of the applicant that inspite of the circular the respondents have failed to take any action to regularise the service of the applicant and therefore he has approached this Tribunal by filing the instant OA seeking for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to enter his name in live register and for re-engagement as CL/substitute as and when vacancies arise in Group’D’ post.
O.A. 724/2006
5. It is the case of the applicant in OA 724/2006 that he is the son of retired railway servant M. Appa Rao who worked as engine fitter and retired from service on 31.10.1980. The applicant was engaged as casual labour on 10.4.1983 under PWI/GNT of South Central Railway of Vijayawada division and worked up to 9.12.1983 continuously. Therefore, he has worked for 130 days without any break. He has enclosed a copy of casual labour card as Annexure A-3. The contention of the applicant is that since he has worked for 130 days he attained temporary status and inspite of his personal approach to the railway authorities, the respondents have engaged his juniors who were regularised in service of Group ‘D’ posts. However, the applicant has not mentioned the names of the juniors who according to him were re-engaged in Group ‘D’ post. Referring to the Railway Board letter No. E(NFG)II/96/CL/61 dated 3.9.1996, the applicant has stated that the respondents have not taken any action for regularisation of his service. He has also mentioned about Railway Board Sl. Circular No. 99/1997 dated 19.6.1997 for regularisation of casual labourers. It is, therefore, the grievance of the applicant that respondents have failed to take any action in terms of Railway Board circular mentioned above in reengaging and regularising the applicant in service and therefore he has approached this Tribunal seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to enter his name in live register and for his re-engagement as CL/Substitute as and when vacancies arise in Group D post.
6. Respondents have contested the application above three applications by filing separate reply in each case.
7. Heard Mr. G.S. Rao learned Counsel for all the applicants and Mr. N. R. Devraj, learned standing counsel for the respondents in all the OAs. I have gone through the facts of the case and material papers placed before me. I have also gone through the judgment of the CAT Principal Bench in the case of Shri Rajveer Singh v. Union of India and Ors. in OA No. 336/1998 reported in 2000 (2) ATJ 42 and the judgment of CAT Allahabad Bench in OA 34/1997 reported in 2002 (1) ATJ 634 in the case of Ram Mohan v. Union of India and Ors. relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the applicant in OA 686/2006 was minor when he was engaged as casual labour. According to the particulars given by the applicant and the material papers enclosed along with the OA it is seen that applicant was minor when he was engaged as casual labour. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that since he was not eligible to be engaged at the time of his engagement he has no right to claim the benefit of any instruction mentioned by him in his OA.
9. I find that the Allahabad Bench of CAT while holding that inclusion of name of a casual labourer in live casual labour register is a continuous cause of action has taken the support of the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in OA 280/2000, 973/2000 and 975/2000 and also discussed the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Shish Pal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2000 (1) ATJ 153.
10. The respondents in their counter reply has taken the point of limitation. They have also made it clear that there is no record with the respondents to verify the details given by the applicant at this distant point of time. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also stated that the submission made by the respondents in their counter reply are mostly on the basis of the particulars given by the applicant and the material papers enclosed along with the applications filed by the applicants.
11. Referring to the implementation of the scheme contained in the Ministry’s letter dated 11.09.86, the respondents have stated that it is made clear there that the cases of only such persons who had worked as project casual labour before 01.01.81 and who were discharged for want of further work or due to completion of work and who submit written representations with adequate documentary proof in this regard so as to reach the concerned Railway Divisional office on or before 31.03.87 will be considered for this purpose. The representation should contain particulars like name, father’s name, date of birth, permanent address, present address, educational qualifications, personal marks of identification, the office, Department and place (mentioning the concerned Railway division) in which initially engaged, the office from which last discharged, date and reasons for such discharge and where and how employed since last discharge as project casual labour on Railways. A true attested copy of the casual labour card and any other proof of having worked as project casual labour on Railways as also an attested copy of photograph, and attested Left Hand Thumb impression should accompany the representation. It is also mentioned that this representation should be sent by registered post to the Divisional Railway Manager of the division in the territorial jurisdiction of which person was initially engaged as project casual labourer. In regard to Railway Board letter dated 03.09.96 respondents have stated that as per the Railway Board letter dated 03.09.96 communicated under Serial Circular No. 118/96, casual labour on rolls should be screened and regularised against Group-D vacancies and no person should be engaged as casual labour. The applicant was neither on rolls nor on live register by the time of issue of the above Board instructions, as such, the question of regularisation of the service of applicants does not arise. It is also contended by the respondents that as per Board letter dated 08.04.97, communicated under serial circular No. 99/97, the services of Construction casual labour (Project casual labour) who are on rolls should be regularised in the concerned division on open line. The applicant was neither on rolls nor on the live register by the time of issue of the above Board instructions, as such the question of regularisation of the applicant does not arise. In regard to their engagement for such short duration the respondents have submitted that the names of casual labour who are engaged for short duration like a week or a fortnight for work during emergency viz. for restoration work during breaches, disruption of through communication, accident relief etc. are not required to be included in the casual labour service register as per Board’s letter dated 10.12.84, communicated under serial circular No. 01/1985. They have further submitted that para-2511 of the Manual does not contain any provision regarding the entitlements and privileges admissible to casual labour who are granted temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous engagement (Open Line Casual Labour on Revenue Works) or 360 days (Project Casual Labour or Open Line casual labour on project works) but it contains provision for recognition of association of Non-Gazetted Railway Servants. It is stated by the respondents that as per para-2005 of the Manual,1990 casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to the rights and benefits admissible to temporary Railway Servants as laid down in Chapter-XXIII of the Manual. In regard to the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants, the respondents have stated that the case laws are not relevant to the cases in hand because of the fact that the applicants herein are casual labourers and not substitutes.
12. The Allahabad Bench of CAT in the case mentioned above Ram Mohan v. Union of India and Ors. held that inclusion of name of a casual labourer in the live casual labour register is a continuous cause of action and disposed of the application with a direction to the respondents to scrutinize the documents of the applicant, verify the genuineness and enter the name of the applicant in LCLR at an appropriate place and reengage or regularise if any junior to him has been reengaged or regularised. In that case the applicant therein was engaged as casual labour in the year 1983 and worked upto 1985 and has approached this Tribunal in 1997 i.e. after a lapse of 12 years. However, the Ahmedabad Bench of CAT in the case of Bhanushankar Vrajlal v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2001 (3) ATJ 103 has dismissed the original application of the applicant who had come before the Tribunal for inclusion of their name in the live register in the year 1996 by holding the application as time barred. In the said case the applicant worked as casual labour for 56 days in 1982-83 and 62 days during 1984. In the said case the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal Nos. 11547 to 11550 of 1996. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while quashing the direction of the Tribunal for placing the name of some of the casual labourers passed the following order:
These appeals have been filed on behalf of Union of India and Others for setting aside an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the appellants to include the names of the petitioners-respondents in the Register of ex-casual employees. It appears from the records that such respondents had worked as casual employees but had left job in the year 1971 and 1974. Respondents No. 1 ceased to be casual employee on 12.10.1984. We are not able to appreciate as to how the Tribunal could have passed such an order. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs.
13. CAT Ahmedabad Bench also made a mention about the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahabir and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2000 (3) ATJ 1 decided on 10.5.2000 wherein it was held that the instructions providing for placement of names of casual labourers on the live casual labour register do not give a continuous cause of action. The Tribunal has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Chendra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . The Tribunal, therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the said application was time barred and dismissed the same.
14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision of Full Bench (supra), I hold that the applications are time barred. They are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.