Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 1338
(28 October 1996)
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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.
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:
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:
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).
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.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No. costs.