- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramesh Kumar v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was engaged as a casual Choukidar on 13 January 1986 and was accorded temporary status on 8 January 1987 while working in the Central Organisation for Operations and Information System (COIS). COIS was later wound up on 10 September 1987, bringing the appellant’s engagement to an end. A junior co-worker, Rohtas Kumar, who had been engaged on 28 February 1986 and conferred temporary status on 23 February 1987, was absorbed and later regularised elsewhere in the Railways.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed OA No. 1201 of 1987 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which was decided against him on 17 May 1990. The present appeal was brought to the Supreme Court by special leave. On 30 April 1996, the Court issued notice to the respondents to explain the differing treatment between the appellant and his junior. An affidavit was subsequently filed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s non-absorption after the winding-up of COIS, when his junior was absorbed and regularised, amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in violation of the principle of seniority.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- As a senior casual worker who had already obtained temporary status, the appellant should not have been terminated while his junior was retained and regularised.
- The action of the authorities in preferring a junior employee constitutes arbitrary discrimination.
Respondents' Arguments
- COIS was a separate and distinct entity from Northern Railway; upon its dissolution on 10 September 1987, the appellant’s services naturally came to an end.
- A list of twenty casual labourers, including Rohtas Kumar, was forwarded for possible re-engagement where work was available; only those who applied were considered.
- The appellant never applied for absorption or appointment with the Centre for Railway Information System (CRIS) or other Railway departments and therefore could not be considered.
- Since an equal opportunity was offered but not availed of by the appellant, no discrimination can be alleged.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the contents of the affidavit filed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, which established that:
- COIS’s winding-up automatically terminated the appellant’s engagement.
- Twenty casual workers were offered re-engagement opportunities at different locations; the appellant failed to apply for any such appointment.
- Because the appellant did not avail himself of the opportunity that was equally extended to all similarly situated employees, the alleged discrimination in retaining a junior employee did not arise.
On these facts, the Court concluded that the appellant’s claim of arbitrary or discriminatory treatment was unfounded.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED; no order as to costs.
The dismissal leaves the Tribunal’s decision intact, denying the appellant any relief or reinstatement. The judgment turns on the factual finding that the appellant failed to apply for absorption; it sets no new legal precedent beyond reaffirming that a claim of discrimination fails when equal opportunity is declined by the claimant.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on 17-5-1990 in OA No. 1201 of 1987.
4. The primary contention of the appellant which prima facie appeals us is that since the appellant was a casual worker and had attained the temporary status, throwing him out of service while his junior was retained, is an arbitrary action. We gave notice to the respondents by order dated 30-4-1996 directing them to explain as under:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Annexure AA to the SLP paper-book and stated that the petitioner was engaged as Choukidar on January 13, 1986 and he was conferred temporary status on January 8, 1987. One Rohtas Kumar, son of Ganpat Ram was also engaged as Choukidar with effect from February 28, 1986 and he was conferred temporary status on February 23, 1987 and both of them have been given medical fit under Category CI. It is also stated that Rohtas Kumar had already been regularised after the scheme was wound up while the petitioner being senior was entitled to regularisation or posting elsewhere.”
5. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit has been filed by Mr Ved Prakash, Divisional Personnel Officer of the Northern Railway, New Delhi, wherein in para 7 at p. 44 it is stated as under:
“In reply to para 4(c) I say that Central Organisation for Operations and Information System is separate and distinct entity from Northern Railway. In view of Annexure ‘A’, the applicant's services came to an end on 10-9-1987 on account of winding up of the Organisation. It is submitted that most of the staff was absorbed by the Centre for Railway Information System (CRIS). A list of 20 casual labourers who could not be absorbed under Respondent 4, was forwarded to the Chief Engineer Construction, Northern Railway, Kashmere Gate, Delhi by COIS for re-engagement provided there was requirement for work. It is respectfully submitted that about seven casual labourers, including Shri Rohtas Kumar s/o Shri Ganpat Ram were spared as per requirement and accordingly they were offered appointment by the Construction Department. It is further submitted that after winding up the Organisation, the applications from the willing staff were invited by Respondent 4 if they wanted appointment in Centre for Railway Information System. It appears that the petitioner never applied for appointment and as such he was not considered for appointment.”
6. The Central Organisation for Operations and Information System is separate and distinct entity from Northern Railway. In view of Annexure ‘A’, the applicant's services came to an end on 10-9-1987 on account of winding up of the said organisation. However, 20 casual workers were directed to be absorbed at different places. It was stated that though opportunity was given to all the persons to make an application for absorption, since the appellant had not opted for appointment, he was not considered for appointment. In view of the fact that he was given an opportunity but he had not availed of the same, the question of discrimination does not arise; nor does the question of appointment of the junior and denial thereafter to the appellant arise.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Alert