28 October 1996
Supreme Court
Download

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI RAMESH KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises against the order of the  Central administrative  tribunal, new  Delhi made on 17.5.1990 in OA No.1201/87.      The primary  contention of  the appellant  which  prima facie appeals  us is  that since  the appellant was a casual worker and  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 April 30,1996 directing them to explain as under:      "Learned counsel for the petitioner      pointed  out   Annexure-AA  to  the      petitioner    was     engaged    as      Choukidar on  January   13,1986 and      he was  conferred temporary  status      on January 8,1967. 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 C.I.  It  is  also  stated      that Rohtas  kumar had already been      regularised after  the schemes  was      wound up while the petitioner being      the   senior   was   entitled   for      regularisation      or      posting      elsewhere."      Pursuant thereto,  an affidavit  has been  filed by Mr. Ved Prakash,  Divisional Personnel  Officer of  the Northern Railway, New  Delhi, in  paragraph 7 at page 44 it is stated as under:      "In reply  to paragraph  4(c) I say      that   central   Organisation   for      operations &  Information system is      separate and   distinct entity from      Northern  Railways.   In  vices  of

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Annexure-’A’,    the    applicant’s      services  come   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  Labours  who      could not  be absorbed 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 labours 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      the respondent  No.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."      The Central Organisation for operations and information system  is   separate  and  distinct  entity  from  Northern Railways. In  view of Annexure-’A’, the applicant’s services came to  an and 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  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   the  question appointment of  the   junior and  denial thereafter  to  the appellant does not arise.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No. costs.