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
ORDER
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
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.