Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

AMIN KHAN MANSOORI v. UNION OF INDIA

Central Administrative Tribunal

Jan 16, 2023

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion: O.A. No. 423/2012

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, Amin Khan Mansoori, worked as Casual Labour under respondent No.4 in spells recorded from 19.10.1979 to 6.9.1985. On 20.2.2001 the Railway Board issued a scheme for absorption of ex-casual labour from live registers subject to specified conditions (including minimum 120 working days and age limits). DRM Jhansi issued a notification dated 30.8.2001 calling for bio-data; applications were to be forwarded by Depot-In-charge to DRM by 30.9.2001.

The applicant claims he submitted his bio-data via the Depot-In-charge (the applicant refers to forwarding dated 3.10.2001) but the Divisional Office did not call him for screening. He made representations (including a representation on 15.2.2008) and filed multiple proceedings:

O.A. No.129/2008 — disposed of on 6.2.2008 directing a fresh representation;
Respondents rejected the claim by order dated 10.4.2008 on the ground that the applicant's bio-data was not received;
O.A. No.810/2008 — allowed by the Tribunal on 20.8.2010 directing consideration of the applicant's case as the situation stood in 2003-04;
Respondents filed Writ Petition No.60736/2010 against the 20.8.2010 order — dismissed on 11.10.2010;
Respondents thereafter passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2010 again rejecting the applicant's claim for lack of receipt of bio-data;
A contempt petition filed by the applicant was dismissed on 28.7.2011 with liberty to file a fresh O.A.; the present Original Application No.423/2012 (filed in March 2012, per respondents' averment) seeks quashing of the 24.12.2010 order, absorption/regularization in Group D with consequential benefits, and costs of the petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the impugned order dated 24.12.2010 rejecting the applicant's claim on the ground that his bio-data was not received should be quashed.
Whether the applicant, a former casual labourer who worked intermittently from 1979 to 1985 and whose name allegedly appears in live casual labour registers, is entitled to absorption/regularization in Group D under the Railway Board scheme of 20.2.2001.
Whether the applicant's petition is barred by limitation given the timeline of events and orders.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant worked for more than 120 days during the period 19.10.1979 to 6.9.1985 and thus satisfies the minimum service condition in the scheme dated 28.2.2001 for absorption of ex-casual labour.
The applicant's name appears in the live casual labour register and the LTI register.
The applicant submitted his bio-data through the Depot-In-charge, and that biodata was forwarded by the Depot-In-charge (relying on correspondence dated 3.10.2001).
The impugned order dated 24.12.2010 is discriminatory because juniors of the applicant were regularized while the applicant's claim was rejected.

Respondents' Arguments

In compliance with Tribunal and High Court directions, the applicant was invited by letter dated 14.12.2010 to produce relevant proof; the applicant attended on 22.12.2010 but failed to produce any proof of submission of his application in accordance with the notification dated 30.8.2001.
Records indicate that the 67 applications referred to by the applicant were sent to ADEN (S) Jhansi and not to DRM Jhansi; the SSE (S) Jhansi letter dated 3.10.2001 does not relate to the DRM notification dated 30.8.2001, and the departmental chronology shows the letter dated 20.8.2001 preceded the 30.8.2001 notification.
Because the applicant failed to produce evidence of timely submission and the departmental records do not show his name among the forwarded applications, the impugned order of 24.12.2010 rejecting the claim is justified.
The present O.A. filed in March 2012 is contended to be barred by limitation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1	Held that courts should not direct absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees as a matter of course; regularization cannot be used as a mode of recruitment where original appointment did not follow due selection process.	The Tribunal relied on this ruling to underscore that regularization/absorption is not a right for casual labour merely by virtue of long continuance; it formed a key precedent supporting dismissal of the applicant's claim.
Satya Prakash and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2010 (2) UPLBEC 1181	Reiterated the principle in Umadevi that appellants engaged on daily wages who were never appointed to sanctioned posts are not entitled to regularization; continuance alone does not entitle one to absorption.	The Tribunal cited this case to reinforce that the applicant, having been engaged as a casual labourer and not appointed against sanctioned posts by selection, could not claim regularization on continuance alone.
S.V. Narayanappa v. State of Mysore, (1967) 1 SCR 128	Referenced as part of the jurisprudential background distinguishing between irregular appointments that may be regularized and appointments illegal or violative of constitutional provisions that cannot be regularized.	Referenced in the chain of authority relied upon by the Constitution Bench decisions cited (as discussed in the opinion) to demonstrate limits on regularization.
R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409	Quoted for the proposition that if an appointment is in infraction of rules or constitution, illegality cannot be regularized; regularization is possible only where the act is within the authority's power though there may be non-compliance with some procedural element that does not go to the root of the appointment.	The Tribunal used this principle (as cited in Umadevi) to explain the distinction between what can be regularized and what cannot, applying it to the applicant's inability to prove a valid submission within the prescribed process.
B.N. Nagarajun's case (as referred to in the opinion)	Referred to by the Constitution Bench in the discussion on the distinction between regularization and permanence; used to emphasize limits on conferring permanence.	Referred in the opinion as part of the jurisprudential foundation supporting the conclusion that regularization cannot substitute for recruitment by due process; applied to reject the applicant's claim where procedural proof of application was absent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal proceeded through a fact-driven and precedent-aware analysis:

Statutory/administrative requirement: The notification dated 30.8.2001 required that applications of ex-casual labour be forwarded through the Depot-In-charge to DRM (Jhansi) by 30.9.2001. Establishing that an application was submitted within that timeframe was therefore a necessary factual predicate to consideration for absorption.
Evidence on record: The applicant asserted that his bio-data was submitted via the Depot-In-charge and points to forwarding dated 3.10.2001. The record, however, did not contain a receipt or documentary proof demonstrating that the applicant's bio-data reached the DRM within the stipulated period. When the applicant was directed to produce proof (letter of 14.12.2010 and attendance on 22.12.2010), he failed to do so.
Departmental record: The impugned order of 24.12.2010, described as detailed and speaking, indicates that records to show which candidates were forwarded were not available and that the specific list of 67 names was not present in the office record; hence the office record did not corroborate the applicant's claim.
Application of precedent: The Tribunal relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Umadevi and subsequent reiteration in Satya Prakash to emphasize that long continuance as a casual worker does not automatically entitle one to absorption or regularization. The opinion explains the distinction between irregularity that can be regularized and illegality or absence of proper appointment process that cannot be remedied by regularization.
Inference and limit of relief: The Tribunal observed that mere entry in a live register is insufficient standing alone to confer the right to absorption. It stated that had the applicant produced evidence of timely submission and the department then failed to consider the claim, the outcome might have been different; however, in absence of such proof, the departmental decision rejecting the claim was sustainable.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Tribunal DISMISSED the Original Application (O.A. No. 423/2012) and refused the reliefs sought by the applicant, including quashing the impugned order dated 24.12.2010 and directing absorption/regularization.

Consequences and implications:

Direct effect: The applicant's claim for regularization/absorption was rejected because he failed to produce documentary proof that his bio-data was submitted to the DRM within the timeframe required by the notification; the impugned departmental order of 24.12.2010 stands.
Costs: The Tribunal made no order as to costs.
Precedential impact: The decision applies established Supreme Court principles (as cited in the opinion) that casual labourers do not have an automatic right to regularization merely by long continuance; the Tribunal did not purport to create or depart from established precedent. The opinion notes that the law is "well settled" on this point and relies on existing Supreme Court authority.

Disposition

The Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Show all summary ...

O.A. No.423/2012

(Reserved on 11.1.2023) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad

Original Application No. 423/2012 Pronounced on 16th of January, 2023.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Amin Khan Mansoori s/o Sri Faiz Mohammad r/o House No. 22, Manoharpura- Nagra District- Jhansi. Applicant

By Advocate: Sri S.M. Ali

Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.

3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Jhansi.

4. Senior Section Engineer (P-Way) CPWI-South) North Central Railway, Jhansi.

Respondents.

By Advocate; Sri Vimal Kumar Rai

ORDER

By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII

The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant for the following reliefs:-

i) To issue order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure A-1).

ii) To issue order or direction commanding the respondents to absorb the applicant for regularization in Group D post with all consequential benefits from the date of juniors were regularized.

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

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.

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

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

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."

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.

14. No order as to costs.

(Justice Om Prakash-VII) Member (J)

HLS/-