iii) To issue award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Casual Labour under the respondent No. 4 and worked in different spells from 19.10.1979 to 6.9.1985 as recorded in his casual labour card No. 235117. On 20.2.2001, Railway Board issued scheme for absorption of ex-casual labour from live registers with certain direction of minimum 120 working days and age 44 for Gen, 43 for OBC and 45 for SC/ST. DRM, Jhansi issued notification dated 30.8.2001 and called bio-data from the ex-casual labour. On 3.10.2001, respondent No. 4 sent applications of 67 ex-casual labours. Divisional Office, Jhansi did not call the applicant for screening. Applicant moved representation dated 15.7.2005. Thereafter, applicant filed O.A. No. 129/2008 before this Tribunal, which was disposed off vide order dated 6.2.2008, directing the applicant to make a fresh representation and respondents will decide the same as per rules. Applicant moved a fresh representation on 15.2.2008. Respondents vide order dated 10.4.2008, rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that his bio-data was not received by the DRM Office in pursuance of notification dated 30.8.2001. Applicant again filed O.A. No. 810 of 2008 for quashing order dated 10.4.2008, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.8.2010 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization as the situation stood in the year 2003-04 when the screening was done keeping in view the fact that if 67 applications which were sent after due date were considered, then there is no reason to reject the claim of the applicant. Respondents filed writ petition No. 60736 of 2010 against the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by CAT which was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2010. Respondents passed the

2

impugned order dated 24.12.2010 on the same ground that the bio data of the applicant was not received. Applicant filed contempt petition which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.7.2011 with liberty to file fresh O.A.

3. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, stating therein that in compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 810/02010 and order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 60376 of 2010, the applicant was advised vide letter dated 14.12.2010 to attend the office along with relevant papers. Applicant attended the office on 22.12.2010 but he could not produce any proof in respect of submitting the application in accordance with notification dated 30.8.2001. It is also mentioned in the CA that as per SSE (S) Jhansi letter dated 3.10.2001 regarding 67 applications, the same were sent to ADEN (S), Jhansi not to DRM, Jhansi in response to DRM (P) Jhansi letter dated 20.8.2001. It is also stated that letter dated 3.10.2001 issued by the SSE

(S) Jhansi to ADEN (S) Jhansi does not relate to the notification dated 3.8.2001, the letter dated 20.8.2001 was issued before the notification dated 30.8.2001, thus the applicant has wrongly stated that the DRM Jhansi received 67 applications including his name. It is further stated that applicant was given opportunity to give proof regarding submission of his application but he failed to establish the fact, therefore, the respondents have rightly passed the impugned order. It is also stated that impugned order was passed on 24.12.2010 and applicant has filed the present O.A. in March 2012 which is highly barred by time and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

3

4. Rejoinder reply has also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, by which he has reiterated the facts as stated in O.A.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant had worked in the department for more than 120 days from 19.10.1979 to 6.9.1985 and he fulfills all the conditions as mentioned in the scheme dated 28.2.2001 for absorption of ex-casual labour. It is further argued that the name of applicant still figures in live casual labour register as well as LTI register. Applicant had filed his bio- data through depot in charge and the same was forwarded by the Depot In charge vide letter dated 3.10.2001. Respondents have passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2010 discriminating against the applicant and allowed the same benefit to the juniors of the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in compliance of the Court's order, applicant was advised to give proof regarding submission of his application form. Applicant had attended the office as per direction of the respondents, but he has failed to produce any proof regarding submission of application. Hence, respondents in absence of proof of submission of application, passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2010 which is challenged by the applicant in the year 2012 beyond the limitation period.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.

9. It is evident from the record, that in pursuance of the notification dated 30.8.2001, applications of ex-causal labour should have been forwarded through the Depot-In- charge to DRM (Jhansi) latest by 30.9.2001. The claim of the applicant is that he has submitted his bio-data to Depot In charge but receipt of the same is not available

4

with him. Vide letter dated 14.12.2010, he was advised to attend the office along with relevant papers and in compliance of the same, he attended the office on 22.12.2010 but he could not produce any document of proof in respect of submitting his application. Thereafter, respondents have passed the impugned order, which is a detailed and speaking order. In the impugned order, it is specifically mentioned that 67 applications forwarded vide letter dated 24.3.2008 by SSE (S), PWI, Jhansi to ADEN/S Jhansi but record in this regard is not available in their office to show which names were forwarded by them. In the impugned order, it is also clearly mentioned that record of 67 applications were not received by his office. Applicant has also failed to produce any proof in this regard.

10. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1

has held that absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or adhoc employee appointed/ recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment. The Court further held that constitutional court should not issue direction for regularization of service of such employees.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated the aforesaid law in the case of Satya Prakash and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2010 (2) UPLBEC 1181, wherein following observations were made by the Court:-

"6. We are of the view that the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. Appellants were only engaged on daily wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. In Muadevi's case (supra) this Court held that

5

the Courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees. This Court held that 5 such directions issued could not be said to be in consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment. This Court held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the directions sought for by the appellants cannot be granted.

7. paragraph 53 of Umadevi's Judgment, deals with irregular appointments (not illegal appointments). Constitution Bench specifically referred to the judgment in S.V. Narayanappa

v. State of Mysore, (1967)1 SCR 128, R.N. Nanjudappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409, in paragraph 15 of Umadevi's judgment as well.

8. Let us refer to paragraph 15 and 16 of Umadevi's judgment in this context. Necessity of keeping in mind the distinction between regularization and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence has also been highlighted by this Court by referring to the following passages from R.N. Nanjundappa's case, which reads as follows:-

"If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment."

6

Further Constitution Bench referred to in B.N. Nagarajun's case in Para 16 of the judgment and stated as follows:

"We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization."

11. In the instant case, opportunity had been given by the authority concerned in compliance of direction of Tribunal's order passed in O.A. No. 810/2008 by this bench to produce the document supporting the fact that applicant had preferred representation in light of the aforesaid notification. Nothing is on record to show that applicant's name find place in the list of 67 candidates. Nothing specific observation was given in O.A. No. 810/2008 to the effect that applicant had applied for regularization. Mere entry in the live register meant for regularization itself is not sufficient to extend the benefit to the applicant. Had he adduced evidence regarding submission of form within the time fixed by the department and department had not considered the claim, then result would otherwise.

12. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion and in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra) and Satya Prakas and others Vs. State of Bihar (supra), when law is now well settled that casual labour has no right to seek regularization, court is of the opinion that applicant's plea is not liable to be accepted.

13. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed.

7

14. No order as to costs.

(Justice Om Prakash-VII) Member (J)

HLS/-

8