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

PETITIONER: V.M.  CHANDRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/04/1999

BENCH: S.R.Babu, S.N.Phukan

JUDGMENT:

     RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :

     The  appellant  before us was initially engaged  as  a Technical Mate on a daily rate of Rs.  6.70 with effect from August  23,  1976  and thereafter at the  daily  rate  which varied  from Rs.  6.70 to Rs.  15.40.  From time to time her services  were  utilised as Technical Mate as  the  required qualification  is  a  diploma  passed or  failed.   She  was continued  in service and she was declared to have  attained temporary  status  in 1981.  When the appellant  represented that  she  had not been conferred with temporary  status  in Group  C  the  Chief  Engineer  took  the  view  that  the appellant  was  not  entitled to be employed in  Group  C. Thereafter  an  application  was presented  to  the  Central Administrative   Tribunal,  Ernakulam   Bench   [hereinafter referred  to  as  the  Tribunal]  seeking  the  relief  of absorption  in Group C.  The Tribunal set aside the action of  the  Chief  Engineer  and remitted  the  matter  to  the concerned  authorities.   Again  the decision  was  rendered against  the appellant and she approached the Tribunal.   On this  occasion  the  Tribunal directed the Chairman  of  the Railway  Board  to examine this matter and give  appropriate relief.  The Chairman of the Railway Board stated as under : There are no category of posts designated as Technicalmates on  the Railways..Zonal Railways have no power to introduce any   new   designation/category    of   posts.     Further, designations  are meant to describe the incumbents of  posts in  regular  scales.  Casual labourers who do not  hold  any post are not to be described by any designation prescribed for regular employees and are to be described only as casual labour.

     In  his  view  a  casual employee  is  only  a  casual employee and a casual employee cannot be differentiated from another  casual employee and the designation of post  cannot be  attached to such an employee.  The Tribunal,  therefore, found  helplessness  to  give relief to  the  appellant  and dismissed  the  application filed by the  appellant.   Hence this  appeal.  The order dated October 30, 1985 by which the appellant  was appointed clearly indicates that her services had been engaged as a Technical Mate since she had completed the course of diploma in technical subjects.  The view taken by  the Chairman of the Railway Board that there is no  post of Technical Mate available for absorption itself appears to

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

be   incorrect  inasmuch  as  the   Railway  Board  by   its communication  No.   P(S) 443/I/Misc./MP/MAS/Vo.X stated  as follows :-

     Board   have   communicated    their   approval   for considering  the  casual  labour   technical  mates  in  the Geographical  jurisdiction of the division for absorption as skilled Artisans Gr.  III in scale Rs.  950-1500 against 25% of  direct recruitment quota alongwith serving casual labour artisans.

     This  communication  clearly indicates the  manner  in which  a  person  whose  services have  been  engaged  as  a Technical  Mate on casual basis has to be treated.  If  this is  the  mode  of providing an employment, then we  fail  to understand as to how the Chairman of the Railway Board could not  apply  the same to the appellant and  give  appropriate relief.    Considering  the  long   period  of  service  the appellant had put in and the qualification possessed by her, namely,  a diploma in technical subjects, it would certainly entitle her to be absorbed as a skilled Artisan in Grade III in  scale  950-1500  against post available  in  respect  of direct  recruitment quota.  If this aspect had been borne in mind  by the Chairman of the Railway Board, we do not  think that he would have rejected the case of the appellant.

     The  view  taken by the Chairman of the Railway  Board that  there  cannot be any designation assigned to a  casual employee  baffles all logic because there can be  engagement of  a peon on casual basis and there can be engagement of  a clerk  on  casual basis and it cannot be said that both  are casual  employees  and,  therefore,   there  cannot  be  any distinction  between a peon and a clerk as they are  engaged on casual basis.  In that view of the matter we do not think that the view taken by the Chairman of the Railway Board was justified.

     Considering  the number of occasions the appellant had approached  the Tribunal and the authorities for relief,  we do  not  think  that any useful purpose will  be  served  by merely  setting  aside  the  order of  the  authorities  and remitting  the matter to them.  On the other hand, it  would be  an  extraordinary  case  where   we  should  direct  the respondents  to absorb the appellant as a skilled Artisan in Grade  III  in  appropriate  scale   as  indicated  in   the communication No.  P(S) 443/I/Misc./MP/MAS/Vo.X of the Board and  the  benefit thereof should be given to the  appellant. However,  the  appellant will not be entitled to any  higher monetary  benefits than what she was drawing hitherto.   The appellant  will be fitted in the appropriate scale by giving increments  and continuity in service on that basis.   These directions shall be given effect to within a period of three months from today.

     We  allow this appeal by setting aside the order  made by  the  Tribunal  and allow the application  filed  by  the appellant  before the Tribunal.  But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.