IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO. 6529    OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.13496/2004)

     Union of India & Ors.    ...Appellants

Versus

     S.J. Benedict             ...Respondent              

O  R  D  E  R

Respondent has not appeared despite service of notice.

Leave granted.

Respondent  was  a  casual  labourer  appointed  on  or  about

15.3.1968. Indisputably,  the Railway Administration had adopted a policy decision

that on completion of six months of service the concerned workman would attain  the

temporary status.  It  is  not  denied  or  disputed  before  us  that  a  large  number of

workmen  approached  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,Ernakulam  as  the

temporary status was denied to them.

In one of such Original Application marked as O.A.No.849 of

1990  by  a  judgment  dated  27.1.1992,  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,

Ernakulam Bench  directed grant of such temporary status, inter-alia, on the premise

that the service cards of the workman concerned had been authenticated by Sr. DSTE

Works and they were not fabricated.

-1-

However,  in  a  batch  of  Original  Applications  bearing  O.A.

No.1502 of 1992 and others, it was directed as under:

"  7.  However,  we  are  not  satisfied  the  way  in  which  the representation has been already disposed of by the Railway, particularly when there was directions by the Tribunal. They very object of the direction and the disposal was to examine the grievances of the applicant with reference to official records bearing in mind  the  declaratory  judgment  and  decide  whether  the  applicants  are  similarly situated like the applicants in O.A.849/90 for getting the benefit on the basis of the principles laid down by that judgment. It appears no attempt in that line was made by the  DPO.  So  there  were  no  implementation  of  the  direction  in  the  perspective  in which it was issued. We deprecate this attitude of the Railway. In fact he has taken a technical  view and decided to reject the request  stating  that  the judgment in  OA 849/90 is not applicable to him. It is wrong and against the view taken in a number of causes. Hence this decision cannot be sustained. We are inclined to set aside Annexure A4 in OA 236/93 and similar decision taken by the DPO in other cases covered by this judgment."

It was further held as under:

".....Since  this  question  is  again  raised  by  the  respondents  and  it  is contested, we are not examining the issue and expressing our final opinion on that. It is for the concerned authorities to take a decision in the light of the  contentions and the earlier decisions of this Tribunal. Therefore, we make it clear that it is open for the respondents to go into the matter in detail with an open mind uninfluenced by the commitments made by the respondents in their reply."

Claiming parity thereto, the respondent filed an Original Application as

his representation pursuant to the said judgment was rejected.  

The Tribunal by a judgment and order dated 2.8.1999 opined as under:

" 3. We have perused the material on record and have heard the learned counsel on either side. That the Senior

-2-

DSTE  is  not  a  project  but  a  regular  establishment  is  now  declared  and  well established.  Therefore,  it  follows  that  the  casual  labourers  on  completion  of  six months  continuous  service,  they  would  attain  temporary  status.  The  plea  of  the respondents is that the application is belated and therefore barred by limitation. Since the  question  of  reckoning  the  period  of  temporary  status  for  the  purpose  of retirement benefits would be relevant and germained only towards the end  of once service. As the applicant is still in service and would attain the age of superannuation only a few years hereafter, we are of the considered view that the application is well within  time.  Coming  to  the  question  of  eligibility  of  the  applicant  for  grant  of temporary status, the photo copy of the casual labour card produced by the applicant, A-4 is a photo copy obtained by him from the office of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the respondents cannot have any suspicion about the genuineness of the casual labour

card as the card was with the third respondent. This plea therefore has no merit."

A writ  petition filed thereagainst  by the  appellants  was  dismissed by  a

Division bench of the Kerala High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

It was submitted before us that no document having been produced to the

satisfaction of the authorities of the Railway Administration that the respondent had

been appointed as a casual labourer in a permanent establishment and continued to

work for six months, he was not entitled to grant of a temporary status.  

It was urged that the learned Tribunal having not considered that aspect of

the matter, the High Court should not have upheld the said order only on the premise

that applications involving similar questions have been allowed by the Tribunal.

-3-

The question as to whether the establishment is a permanent one or not is

essentially a question of fact. Furthermore, the question as to whether the respondent

was appointed in the year 1968 and continued to work in the said establishment till he

attained the age of superannuation was again essentially a question of fact.

It  may be true that although his  representation for grant of temporary

status was rejected in the year 1984 and he filed an application before the Tribunal

only in the year 1988, the same might not have been entertained. In our opinion there

was  no  reason  as  to  why  the  relevant  documents  could  not  be  produced  by  the

Railway Administration to show that the contention of the respondent was incorrect

particularly when he had been continuing in service.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion

that no case has been made out to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in

exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The appeal is dismissed.

......................J.       [S.B. SINHA]

.....................J                                   [ CYRIAC JOSEPH ]

New Delhi, October 22, 2008.

-4-