1. The question of law and facts involved in these two O.As. are common and therefore, it will be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment.
2. The applicants herein are seeking the relief of regularization in Railway service on the basis of service mentioned in their casual labour card. It is stated that the applicants have previously worked as casual labour with the respondents for various period. The casual labour cards show that all of them have put in more than 120 days of service in Railway. The names of the applicants are borne on live register. The Railway Board framed a scheme of regularization of casual labour by order dated 09.10.1998. As per the said scheme, casual labour borne on the live register and supplementary live register, are to be regularized by screening. Various conditions have been prescribed for regularization of casual labour. Initially the condition regarding educational qualification and age were fixed and the same were relaxed from time to time. One of the conditions of the scheme is that the casual labour must have put in at least 120 days of service. It is also stated that in pursuance of Railway Board order dated 09.10.1998 Bhusawal Division issued notification for regularization of casual labours on 21.5.1999 and the Depot In-charge was directed to prepare a list of casual labours borne on live register and supplementary live register and to publish the same. All the casual labours were asked to submit a proforma containing necessary particulars. List of casual labours borne on live register / supplementary live register came to be published, the names of applicants were mentioned in such list since their names are borne on live register. Hundreds of casual labours from Bhusawal Division applied for regularization. The applicants also submitted the requisite proforma to respondent No. 2 for regularization " of their services in the year 1999. Respondent No. 2 initially regularized the services of those casual labour who were within 33 years of age and had put in more than three years of service and who were 8th standard pass. However, when subsequently the condition of eligibility came to be relaxed and more vacancies were available for regularization, the turn of applicants arrived. Respondent No. 2 sent the casual labour card for verification to respective Depots where their services were put in, the cards of the applicants were also sent for verification. It is further stated that on the basis of the verification of cards the respondent No. 2 prepared two lists of casual labourer. The first list consisted of those casual labours whose services were found to be more than 120 days and the second list consisted for those casual labours whose services were found to be less than 120 days after verification. Respondent No. 2 forwarded the said two lists to respondent No. 1 by his letter dated 24.10.2002. When the applicants made enquiries, they were shocked to learn that their names were included in the second list i.e., the list of casual labours whose services were verified to be less than 120 days. The applicants were orally informed by the office of respondent No. 2 and the respective Depot In-charge that the full records of service of the applicants, being old, were destroyed and are no longer available. It is further stated that the applicants are not being regularized since their full service is not verified because of destruction of records. The respondents have regularized the services of the casual labours from the first list. The first list consisted of 135 casual labours, out whom 107 were found fit after screening and have been regularized in May, 2003. It is understood by the applicants that the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 24.10.2002 had asked respondent No. 1 about regularization of casual labours from the second list and that the respondent No. 1 had asked respondent No. 2 not to regularize their services since their number of days are verified to be less than 120 days. The applicants are therefore left with no choice but to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal for regularization of their services.
3. These two O.A. along with other 10 O.As. were decided by this Tribunal by order dated 24.12.2004, these O.As. were dismissed. The applicants herein filed writ petition before Hon'ble High Court. Three Writ Petition Nos. 1139/05, 1140/05 and 2176/05 were disposed of by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14th July, 2005 and the matter was remanded to this Tribunal to decide the matter regarding petitioners' eligibility for regularization afresh. The parties have also filed additional pleadings before this Tribunal.
4. We have given anxious consideration to the pleadings filed by respective parties as well as order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 14.7.2005. Also heard Mr. S.V. Marne learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. V.D. Vadhavkar for respondent in O.A. 692/03 and Mr.
V.S. Masurkar for respondents in O.A. 759/03.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the names of all applicants are borne on live register. Casual Labour cards of these applicants indicate that all of them have put in more than 120 days of service. Personnel Inspector has also verified the services of the applicants and therefore it is not the case of bogus or fake casual labour card. Therefore, respondents cannot deny the benefit of regularization to the applicants. Since the notification was issued by the General Manager on 21.5.1999 and in pursuance thereof 107 casual labours were regularized during the month of May 2003. He further submitted that the full services of the applicants are not verified by the Personnel Inspector on the ground that the records have been destroyed or not available and they have verified the services of applicants as less than 120 days. If the respondents have not kept the records properly the applicants cannot be made to suffer for the same.
He also submitted that the condition of regularization were relaxed in September 2001 by Railway Board letter dated 20.9.2001 prescribing upper age limit of 40 years in case of general candidates, 43 years in case of OBC candidates and 45 years in case of SC/ST candidates. The applicants fulfill all the conditions for regularization and therefore, the same cannot be denied to them. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the applicants is absolutely illegal and void.
6. Mr. V.D. Vadhavkar learned Counsel for respondents in O.A. 692/03 contended that Shri A.D. More applicant No. 1 filed O.A. 501/01 which was disposed of by order dated 05.12.2001 without recording any finding on merit and given liberty to the applicant to file fresh O.A. to impugn the relevant circulars of the Railway Board. This fact has been suppressed in the present O.A. The present O.A. is filed 2 1/2 years after the judgment hence it is not only time barred but also not in consonance with the liberty granted by this Tribunal, hence the case of applicant No. 1 is not identical to the remaining four applicants. He also submitted that during the period from 01 5.1996 to 31.3.1998 a large number of casual labours were regularised as a result of drive and hardly any eligible candidates have been left out. The cards produced by various applicants do not appear authentic and in some cases it is merely a certificate of service. The Railway Board found that large number of bogus casual labour cards were shown on roll, issued strict instructions imposing responsibility on the shoulders of senior officers for verification and issued circulars from time to time. The similar instructions as contained in Board circular dated 23.02.1990 were issued prior to that date from time to time but only instructions added contained in Para 3 of the Board's letter to the extent that in the existing LTI registers three additional columns should be. included for giving reference to casual labour card number, live register number and service register number. Learned Counsel also stated that the Hon'ble High Court has directed to take into consideration the casual labour card but has not expressed any opinion on either the validity of the cards or the contents thereof. Hon'bie High Court is also in agreement with the Tribunal that various instructions/circulars issued by the respondents from time to time with a view to avoid bogus application for regularization. Learned Counsel also mentioned Railway Board circular dated 09.02.1984 and submitted that, to avoid malpractice in the preparation and issue of casual labour service cards the respondents deputed Personnel Inspectors to verify the contents of the cards of the applicants herein. Personnel Inspectors have categorically stated that the service particulars could not be verified due to nonavailability of records. Therefore, verification report of the Personnel Inspectors has to be treated as valid since casual labour service cards have; been verified as per record. Learned Counsel also pointed out some defects in the casual labour cards of the applicants by referring to photostat copies of these card annexed by the applicants.
7. Learned Counsel Mr. V.S. Masurkar appearing for the respondents in O.A. 759/03 adopted the arguments submitted by Mr. V.D. Vadhavkar. He further stated that Railway Board circular dated 09.10.1998 does not give any legal or enforceable right. These casual labaour were not engaged by following any due process of law. Consequently whenever a policy decision has to enforced, then all the requirement laid down in the circular shall be fulfilled. He also stated that a large number of labourers were reqularized during the period from 01.5.1996 to 31.3.1998 and the applicants might not have fulfilled the requirements and therefore, they were left out. He submitted that the casual labour on the basis of the same card can be engaged by different PW1 and therefore cards which are having been verified for the different period by a single supervising agency creates suspecion. Further every casual labour card must bear a printed serial number and these numbers are missing from the documents filed by the applicants and some of the applicants have filed only certificate of service. Learned Counsel also pointed out some defects in the casual labour cards by referring the photostat copies filed by the applicants.
8. The applicants in these two O.As. are seeking the relief in pursuant of Railway Board circular dated 09.10.1998 issued on the subject for screening the casual labours borne on the live/supplementary live register etc., the relevant paras of the circular are reproduced below: 1.1 Similarly Supplementary Casual Labour Live Registers are to be maintained Division-wise separately for both Open line and Project casual labour who were discharged prior to 01.01.1981 for want of work or due to completion of work and not reengaged thereafter and who had applied by 31.3.87 for the purpose and were found eligible for the purpose by a Committee of Officers on each Division.
2. Now that the casual labaour on roll have been absorbed under the special drive during the period from 1.5.96 to 31.3.98, further, vacancies in the different departments of a Division/Unit may be filled up by screening the casual labour borne on the live register(s) and after exhausting them, by screening those borne on the supplementary live register of the Division / Unit.
2.1 In case of the casual labour borne on casual labour live registers, the regularization will continue to be as per their turn according to seniority based on the number of days put in by them as casual labaour.
2.2 However, in case of the casual labour borne on supplementary live register, the extant instructions which stipulate that the persons borne on supplementary live register will be considered for regularization based on the service after re-engagement after 1.1.81 (it may be noted that after such re-employment they would have in any case appeared in the live register as well) have now lost relevance. The same are, therefore, modified to provide that the regularization of casual labour borne in casual labour supplementary live register will be considered in accordance with the number of days put in by them prior to 1.1.81 those falling in this category being placed enbloc below any who may have rendered service after re-engagement after 1.1.81.
In view of the instructions contained in Paras 2.1 and 2.2 of the above circular it can be safely concluded that the above circular applies to casual labour borne on live register and supplementary live register based on service after re-engagement after 1.1.81. Admittedly all the applicants were initially engaged after 01.01.1981 hence it applies to the applicants.
9. The next point arises for our consideration is that whether direction in Railway Board circular dated 23.02.1990 were to be complied with and previous casual labour are also to be regularized in that manner. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that by that circular dated 23.02.1990 instructions were issued by Railway Board for incorporating some additional information in the LTI register. The said circular shows that casual labour register is to be maintained in two offices. The main register is maintained in depot and the copy maintained in the Divisional office. It makes mandatory to open three additional column in the LTI register. The said circular also makes it mandatory to give cross reference in the casual labour card to live register number and LTI register number. A bare reading of the circular makes it amply clear that it can operate only prospectively, because additional columns in LTI register cannot be made retrospectively.
Further more it does not call upon the casual labour who have already worked with Railways to deposit their cards in order to get cross reference in their cards. This shows that the said circular is applicable only in respect of such casual labours who are engaged after 23.02.1990. Para 6 of the circular directs zonal railways to issue instructions in accordance with directions. This also shows that the circular dated 23.02.1990 is prospective in nature. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to circular of the Railway Board issued on 13.9.1978 (Annexure R7), on 09.02.1984 (Annexure R9) and on 02.3.1987 (Annexure R12) and Headquarters letter dated 19.5.1984 (Annexure R-10), Headquarters letter dated 28.3.1985 (Annexure R11) and submitted that Railway Board circular dated 13.9.1978 provides at the time of engagement of casual labour passport size photograph be pasted on their service card. Railway Board circular dated 09.02.1984 provides casual labour card has to be checked to avoid bogus cards and the particular in casual labour card has to tally with those records maintained in the office. Headquarters letter dated 19.5.1984 provides that entry in LTI register should be available on the casual labour card. Headquarters letter dated 28.3.1985 provides page number of LTI register of casual labour should be indicated clearly on all the service card on top sheet as well as first page of the casual labour card. Learned Counsel contended that above circular indicates that similar instructions as contained in circular dated 23.02.1990 were issued prior to that date from time to time but only the instructions added contained in para 3 of the Board's letter dated 23.02.1990.
Headquarters letter dated 19.5.1984 speak about illustrative list of types of malpractice in the preparation and issue of casual labour service card; whereas instructions were issued that the officers of employing department to conduct checks and take appropriate action wherever necessary. Paras 2.3 and 2.4 of the circular dated 19.5.1984 reads as under: 2.3 In addition to official designation of the card issuing authority, which is generally indicated by putting the rubber stamp, the name of such official should also be written in Capital letters just below the signature.
2.4 The serial number of the entry in the thumb impression register should be available on the casual labour card to facilitate easy verification of the antecedents.
Para 3 and of the Railway Board circular dated 23.02.1990 reads as under: In the existing L.T.I. Registers, three additional columns should be included for giving references to casual labour card number, live register number and the service register number (where service register is maintained for employees who have attained temporary status). The changes to be made in the existing L.T.I. Registers are indicated in Annexure.
All the casual labour cards should contain cross reference to the serial number of the individual concerned in the live register and the number in the L.T.I. Register.
A perusal of the circular makes it clear that only these instructions contained in Paras 3 and 4 were made effective from the date of issue of circular dated 23.02.1990. Thus instructions regarding cross reference of serial number of the individual concerned in the live register were prospective in nature to be followed from date of issue of the circular dated 23.2.1990. Since LTI register was already in existence as mentioned in Para 3 of the circular these additional columns were added thus the instructions in respect of cross reference of serial number of individual concerned in LTI register have been made more specific through these instructions were already in existence.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the instructions regarding cross reference to serial number of the casual labour card of individual concerned in the live register are effective from the date of issue of the circular. So far as cross reference of LTI register number in casual labour card is concerned it was already in existence as indicated in the casual labour cards of some of the applicants herein.
10. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that it is not disputed by the respondents that the names of the applicants are borne on the live register. Personnel Inspectors have stated in their verification report that the cards of the applicants are genuine, therefore, whether or not live register number or LTI number is written in the applicants card is of no relevance. Learned Counsel for the respondents in reply to the above contention stated that Personnel Inspectors have categorically stated that the service particulars could be verified to the extent records available, the service particulars available have been indicated. Therefore, the verification report of the personnel inspector is to be treated as valid, since relevant casual labour service has been verified as per record.
11. Hon'ble High Court has directed to take into consideration the casual labour card but not expressed any opinion either on the validity of the cards or the contents thereof. Now we proceed to examine the casual labour cards of the applicants in O.A. 692/03 and 759/ 03 produced by the applicant.
(i) Applicant No. 1 Shri A.D. More's casual labour card shows his date of birth as 30.01.1961 and initial date of engagement is shown as 28.5.1981. He is now above 40 but was below 40 on 20.9.2001 while he submitted the application for regularization, Shri More claims to be SC but such an entry does not appear in the casual labour card and the cclumn is blank. Although he has submitted certificate of being SC issued on 12.8.2002, obviously it was not available with him at the time of preparation of casual labour card. LTI No. 26/100 is also mentioned on the front page of the casual labour card and in that case cross reference is LTI No. 26/100. Number of days of service verified by personnel inspector are NIL days as per statement filed by respondents at page 101 (Annexure R3).
(ii) Applicant No. 2 Shri Pradeep Kumar Kunjilal has not produced any casual labour card, he has only filed service certificate. It shows that he was engaged on 02.6.1986. Personnel Inspector report confirms that he has no casual labour card. This hand written certificate (Page 186-187) carries entires of Live Register No. 206 which shows that it was not issued while in service last spell is 21.11.86-18.12.1986. Number of days verified by personnel inspector are 77 days.
(iii) Applicant No. 3 Shri Santosh Singh Gulabsingh's casual labour card has a cross reference of LTI number 47/II. His date of birth is 01.3.1964 and date of initial appointment is 19.5.1982. It also shows that there is a cutting and over-writing in the name. Number of days of service verified in his case by personnel inspector are NIL days.
(iv) Applicant No. 4 Shri Vijaya Kumar Kashinath's casual labour card has cross reference TI No. 71/V, his age on appointment is shown as 19 years, his date of birth column is blank and his date of engagement is 29.8.1982, number of days verified by personnel inspector are 00 days.
(v) Applicant No. 5 Shri Balushankar has no cross reference of LTI register on his casual labour card, his date of birth is 26.01.1960, first engagement date is 16.3.1980. The report shows that his name is not bearing in LTI register. This candidate belong to general community and his age is 40 on 20.9.2001, service verified by personnel inspector is 113 days.
(i) Applicant No. 1 Balu Motiram was within the age limit when he was initially employed. However, verification of casual labour card with regard to service rendered by him is only 64 days. Page 13 to 18 is the copy of casual labour card No. 139289. The column pertaining to date of initial employment is 24.11.1980 at page 16.
(ii) Applicant No. 2 Shri Bhimrao Namdeo filed copy of casual labour card at page 20 to 22. It shows his date of birth is 01.6.1965 at the time of initial appointment on 28.11.1981. He was not within the age limit when he was initially employed. In fact, he was minor and completed 16 years, 5 months and 27 days. However, on verification of the entries in the casual labour card with regard to number of days of service rendered by him is only 27 days, Page 19 to 22 is the copy of casual labour card No. 292714, LTI of the casual labour is not properly attested by the PWI i.e., the rubber stamp of the PWI is not affixed. The column pertaining to date of initial employment is blank at page 22.
(iii) Applicant No. 3 Shri Rajesh Muralidhar was within the age limit when he was initially employed. However, on verification of the entries in the casual labour card with regard to number of days of service rendered by him is only 115 days. As per page 23 to 26 is the copy of casual labour card No. 296384. He has furnished the following particulars "Sr. No. 68-Rajesh Murlidhar, SC. LF BSL, Education - SSC Pass, Date of Birth - 22.5.1964, Age on 1.4.99 -35 years 01 month, Recruitment dated 26.9.1981 to 18.8.1983 total days 154 days". These particulars are compared with casual labour card and the following short comings are noticed - (i) Education is IX standard and not SSC, (ii) Date of initial engagement is 12.2.1985 and not 26.9.1981. Apart from the aforesaid difference there is over-writing in the casual labour card at page 26 it is very difficult to accept the service of this applicant.
(iv) Applicant No. 4 Shri Devidas Parasram relied upon page 27 of the O.A. to show that he was engaged in the Railways. However according to Railway Board's circular dated 13.9.1978 and also the provisions of IREM, one has to produce and preserves the casual labour card as authentic record and nothing else. Therefore, his contention and document cannot be relied upon as the particulars placed on record by the applicant at page 40 are completely silent.
Personnel Inspector has verified service as 55 days.
(v) Applicant No. 5 Shri Siddharth Ramdas was not within the age limit when he was initially employed. Casual labour card at page 29 shows his date of birth as 27.11.1964 and date of first engagement as 22.3.1982. In fact, he was minor and completed 17 years 3 months and 25 days. However, on verification of the entires in the casual labour card with regard to number of days of service rendered by him is only 90 days. He has placed on record Annexure A5 the following particulars. "Sr. No. 28-Siddharth Ramdas, SC. PWI BSL YD, Education VIII Pass, Date of Birth 27.11.1964, Age on 01.4.1999 - 35 years, recruitment date 22.3.82 to 18.8.82, total days 131 days. These particulars were compared with the casual labour card and the following short comings are noticed (i) there is no card number (ii) education is VII standard and not VIII, (iii) Date of initial engagement is not shown on the casual labour card. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the service of the applicant.
13. A perusal of the casual labour card of the applicants indicate that there are some discrepancies in the casual labour cards as noted above.
However, there is no contention of the respondents that the casual labour cards/dairies are bogus. More over personnel inspectors have verified the working days of the applicants on the basis of records available. Whatever respondents could do in this regard, they did their best to verify the entries of the working days in the casual labour cards/dairies of the applicants, They cannot be blamed for destruction of pay sheets for which the period of five years has been provided as per rules and instructions, So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that records connected with the claim to service and personal matter of the persons in service shall not be destroyed as per instructions, But learned Counsel has not pointed as to which record he means to say which can be available with the respondent, but has been destroyed, The applicants have not filed any corroborative piece of evidence in support of entires made in their casual labour card nor they sought for production of any relevant record from the respondents. Though the genuineness of the casual labour card cannot be disputed but at the same time, it is not safe to rely upon all the entries of working days made in the casual labour card/dairies in the absence of corroborative piece of evidence specially when these entires have been verified by personnel inspectors to some extant and they have filed a detail report. Hence verification report of the personnel inspectors cannot be discredited and same shall be treated as valid.
14. Learned Counsel for the respondents also raised some objection in respect of the minority of Vijay Kumar Kashinath(O.A. 692/03), his date of birth is 15.7.1964 and the date first engagement on 29.5.1982. Thus, this applicant was below 18 years at the time of first engagement but age in the casual labour card has been shown as 19 years. Similarly applicant No. 2 Bhim Rao Namdeo in O.A. 759/03 was not within age limit when he was initially appointed. His date of birth is 01.6.1965 at the time of initial appointment on 20.11.1981 and applicant No. 5 in O.A.759/03 Siddharth Ramdas his date of birth is shown as 27.11.1964 and date of initial appointment is shown as 22.3.1982 and he was also below 18 years. According to rules, 18 years is the minimum age entry in Railway service and therefore, these three applicants were minor at the time of their first engagement, hence they are not entitled for regularization based on such appointment. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Single Judge of this Tribunal in O.A. 832/02 decided on 19th August, 2003 by Justice S.R. Singh relying upon Hon'ble Apex Court decision in case of Employer in Relation to the Management of GC of BCCL v. Workmen represented by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union 2003 SCC (L&S) 30. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.3358/04 decided on 02nd February, 2005. It is not disputed that the initial date of engagement at the relevant time was 18 years. It is the case of the respondents that these applicants were minor at the time of their initial engagement, they were less than the prescribed minimum age limit. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Employer in Relation to the Management of GC of BCCL (supra) held that the disability of being underage at the time of appointment, held does not stand subsequently removed. Hence regularization based on such appointment cannot be upheld. More so when there was a specific provision barring under-age persons from working in mines. In view of the decision of Apex Court applicants who were under-age at the time of first engagement cannot be considered for regularization. The decision of Hon'ble High Court relied by learned Counsel for applicant is distinguishable on facts and it refers to a case where the applicant was Class IV employee in the school and who was appointed when he was only 17 years, whereas the minimum requirement was 18 years, but he continues to be in service in the year 1994 and thereafter. It was held by Hon'ble High Court that at least from 1994 onwards the appointment would be legal. In the present case, the applicants were engaged in the year 1981-82 and they were discharged after some period, they are not in service at present. More over the Railway is an organization where the safety is involved, hence under-age persons are debarred from working. Therefore, decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is applicable rather than decision of Hon'ble High Court in the facts of the present case.
15. Learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. V.D. Vadhavkar argued that the applicant No. 1 in O.A. 692/03 had earlier filed O.A. 50/2001 for regularization of his services and the Tribunal vide order dated 05.12.2001 had disposed of the O.A. with a direction that the order passed in O.A. 398/2000 will also apply mutatis-mutandis to this O.A.Thus, the O.A. filed by this applicant was disposed of without recording any finding on merit and giving liberty to the applicant to file fresh O.A. to impugn the relevant circulars of the Railway Board as he seek to challenge. Learned Counsel has also invited our attention on the decision of R.I. Khan and Ors. v. Union of India 398/00 and A.D.More v. Union of India O.A. 50/ 2000. We have gone through these orders. In Para 5 of R.I. Khan case (supra) the Tribunal held: In the interest of justice, this O.A. is disposed of without recording any findings on merits, giving liberty to the applicants to file a fresh O.A. to impugn the relevant circulars of the Railway Board they seek to challenge, to enable the O.A. to be properly adjudicated upon by a Division Bench.
Unlike in O.A. 398/2000, no M.A. has been filed in this case impugning the relevant circulars of the Railway Board. However, this O.A. was tagged along with O.A. 398/2000 and the issues involved are the same. Hence the orders dated 05.12.2001 passed in the aforesaid O.A. No. 398/2000 will also apply mutatis mutandis in this O.A.Thus, the applicant No. 1 in O.A. 692/03 has not disclosed this fact in Para 7 of the O.A. and he has stated that he has not filed any other petition or application in any other Court regarding the present cause of action. We are unable to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the present cause of action is different than the cause of action in earlier O.A. Thus, it appears that the applicant has suppressed the material fact and therefore, he has not come to this Tribunal with clean hand. More over, the O.A. of the applicant is not in consonance with the liberty granted to him by the Tribunal.
16. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the O.As. are barred by limitation. He has also stated in the context of the limitation Hon'ble High Court has referred to 2001 circular and Para 35 of the Tribunal order dated 24.12.2004 and the matter has been remanded to be decided afresh. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention.
(i) Jagdish Prasad v. Union of India 2003(1) SLJ 106. In case before Full Bench of Hon' ble Delhi High Court the petitioner had worked as casual labour in 1986. A scheme to maintain live register of casual labour was introduced in Northern Railway vide circular dated 28.8.1987. The petitioner filed application in September, 1987 for direction to include his name in the live register. The matter was referred to a larger bench due to difference of opinion on the point whether it is a case of continuous cause of action and thus limitation will not be attracted. It was held by Full Bench - it being not a case of right of salary etc., it is not a case of continuous cause of action, hence dismissed.
(ii) In case of full Bench of this Tribunal in Mahavir and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AT Full Bench 1997-2001 page 99 it was held: Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 21 - Casual Labour - Limitation Those casual labourers who have been discharged from service on account of nonavailability of work have the right to have their names placed in the live casual labour register - This right accrues in their favour the moment their services are discharged Provisions of Section 21 of the AT Act would be applicable to the applications filed seeking benefits of the Railway Board circulars dated 25.4.1981 and 28.8.1987.Ratan Chandra Sammant and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
1993(1) SCSLJ 410 the Apex Court held: Two questions arise, one, if the petitioners are entitled as a matter of law for re-employment and other if they have lost their right, if any, due to delay, Right of casual labour employed in projects, to be re-employed in Railways has been recognized both by the Railways and this Court. But unfortunately the petitioners did not take any step to enforce their claim before the Railways except sending a vague representation nor did they even care to produce any material to satisfy this Court that they were covered in the scheme framed by the Railways. It was urged by the learned Counsel for petitioners that they may be permitted to produce their identity cards etc., before opposite parties who may accept or reject the same after verification. We are afraid it would be too dangerous to permit this exercise. A writ is issued by this Court in favour of a person who has some rights. And not for sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for manoevering. Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well. From the date of retrenchment if it is assumed to be correct a period of more than 15 years has expired and in case we accept the prayer of petitioner we would be depriving a host of others who in the meantime have become eligible and are entitled to claim to be employed. We would have been persuaded to take a sympathetic view but in absence of any positive material to establish that these petitioners were in fact appointed and working as alleged by them it would not be proper exercise of discretion to direct opposite parties to verify the correctness of the statement made by the petitioners that they were employed between 1964 to 1969 and retrenched between 1975 to 1979.State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh & Ashok Kumar 1991 SC SLJ 93 held in Para 11 as under:Jagdish Prasad Mathur and Ors. v. United Provinces Government that a suit for declaration by a dismissed employee on the ground that his dismissal is void, is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act. A similar view has been taken by Oudh Chief Court in Abdul Vakil v. Secretary of State and Anr. AIR 1943 Oudh 368, that in our opinion is the correct view to be taken, A suit for declaration that an order of dismissal or termination from service passed against the plaintiff is wrongful, illegal or ultra vires is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, The decision to the contrary taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in these and other cases (Suite of Punjab v Ajit Singh, (1998(1) SLR 96) and (ii) State of Punjab v. Ram Singh 1986(3) SLR 379 is not correct and stands over-ruled.
17. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that Railway Board by letter dated 20,9.2001 has given relaxation in age limit to casual labour and therefore fresh cause of action arise. He further argued that on the basis of verification of cards respondent No. 2 prepared two lists of casual labour. First list consisted of those casual labours whose services found to be more than 120 days and second list of those whose services found to be less than 120 days after verification and forwarded the said lists to respondent No. 1 by letter dated 24.10.2002. The first list consisted of 135 casual labours out of whom 107 were found fit and were regularized in May 2003 and the applicants have not been regularized since number of days of service are verified to be less than 120 days. This action of the respondents gives fresh cause of action to the respondents. In the present case also keeping the names on live register of casual labour creates no continuous cause of action as held by full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jagdish Prasad case (supra). So far as the cause of action on the issuing the letter dated 20.9.2001 is concerned the relevant part of the order reads as under: The question of removal of minimum three years service condition (continuous or broken) for the purpose of grant of age relaxation to ex-casual labour as mentioned above has been taken up in the PNM-NFIR vide agenda Item No. 41/ 2001. The matter has been carefully considered by this Ministry. It has been decided that in partial modification of the instructions quoted above, the ex-casual labour who had put in minimum 120 days casual service, whether continuous or in broken spells, and were initially engaged as casual labour within the prescribed age limit of 26 years for general candidates and 33 years for SC/ST candidates, would be given age relaxation upto the upper age limit of 40 years in the case of general candidates, 43 years in the case of OBC and 45 years in the case of SC/ST candidates. Other provisions for their absorption in Group 'D' will remain unaltered.
It has been decided that ex-casual labour who become eligible as a result of above modification, will be considered for absorption with prospective effect.
A perusal of the letter quoted above indicates that these instructions to be followed in respect of the applicants who became eligible as a result of above modification will be considered for absorption with prospective effect. It is noticed that none of the applicants have completed 120 days as per verification record. Thus they are not entitled for the benefit of the circular. Even otherwise the O.A. has been filed on 22.9.2003 after two years of issue of the circular dated 20.9.2001. No representation by the applicants has been shown to have been made seeking the benefit of the said circular. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the respondents have counted the age of the applicants as on 01.4.1999 as indicated in the statement filed by the respondents (Annexure R-3) at page 101 of paper book). Thus it is noticed that after issue of circular dated 20.9.2001 the respondents have prepared a list of eligible casual labours in order to screen for their regularization and the age as on 01.4.1999 has been determined, It may be true that the earlier circular issued by General Manager, Central Railway vide order dated 21,5.1999 they might have determined the age of the candidates on 01,4,1999, They have also determined the age as on 01,4,1999 after the relaxation of age limits etc, vide circular dated 20.9,2001, Thus, from the dale of the circular dated 20,9,2001 fresh cause of action is accrued to those who became eligible by virtue of relaxation of age and educational qualification from the date of respective circular provided that they otherwise fulfill all other conditions for regularization, 18. Learned Counsel for the applicant urged that the respondents have regularized 107 casual labour leading to panel dated 09.4.2003 and respondent No. 2 has written letter dated 24.10.2002 as to whether service of casual labour in second list containing the names of all the applicants can be regularized, it gives fresh cause of action to the applicants. We have seen the file relating to the regularization of 107 casual labours produced for our perusal. It shows two lists were prepared, Annexure-I containing names of 135 casual labours eligible in all respect, whose services as casual labour have been verified by personnel inspectors and who were eligible. Annexure-II contains the list of 121 casual labours who were also eligible in all respects but their services as casual labour on verification found to be less than 120 days. It is also noticed that in that list age of the applicants was counted as on 01.4.1999. Respondent No. 2 forwarded the said two list to respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 24.10.2002. However, the first list consisted of 135 casual labours out of whom 107 were found fit after screening for regularization. Admittedly the applicants name were not included in the first list. Therefore, publication of the panel in the year 2003 does not provide any fresh cause of action to them. The second list containing the names of 121 casual labours also shows that the services of these casual labours verified less than 120 days by Personnel Inspectors. This list has been submitted for decision by Competent Authority whether they should also be considered for screening or otherwise. This is an internal correspondence with respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 which do not create any legal right in favour of the applicants as held by Apex Court in case of Puranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors.
95. It has been held in Para 11 that "It is the orders issued by the Competent Authorities and received by him which alone can create rights in his favour. This apart from the fact that even those nothings did not spell out any order in his favour." Thus, these two O.A. have been filed on 22.9.2003, two years after issue of the circular dated 20.9.2001 and no representation has been made by the applicants in respect of their regularization claiming benefit of the circular and further letter dated 24.10.2002 do not create any fresh cause of action. Thus, the O.As. are barred by limitation.
19. For the reasons stated above, both the O.As. 692/03 and 759/03 lack merit and also fail on the point of limitation. These O.As. are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.