# Ram Niyadi Rai v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 477
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-30
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-niyadi-rai-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44334
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Services Regulations - Article 351-A - disciplinary enquiry after retirement - reduction of pension
- forfeiture of gratuity - departmental enquiry - oral enquiry - opportunity to cross-examine witnesses -
principles of natural justice - quasi-judicial proceeding - major punishment - enquiry not conducted in
accordance with procedure - punishment order set aside.

The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.02.2004 passed by respondent-1 imposing punishment
of reduction of pension by fifty per cent and forfeiture of entire gratuity.(Para 2)

Petitioner was working as Accounts Officer in the Office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari and retired on 31.01.1998.
Before his retirement, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 17.01.1997 which was replied by him and
thereafter Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report which has culminated in the impugned order of
punishment.(Para 3)

Counsel for petitioner submitted that enquiry has been continued after retirement of petitioner under Article
351-A of Civil Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CSR"), which provides that procedure for
enquiry would be same as is applicable in the case of major penalty but in the present case, no date, time or
place for oral enquiry was ever fixed and after receiving reply from petitioner, Enquiry Officer submitted
enquiry report and thereafter punishment order has been passed. In this regard, specific averment has been
made in para 20 of writ petition.(Para 4)

In the present case, charge-sheet was issued to petitioner which is undated but it is said in para 13 of writ
petition that the same was served on 17.01.1997. This is admitted in para 7 of counter affidavit. Petitioner
submitted reply on 28.01.1997 as said in para 15 of writ petition and that is also not denied in para 9 of
counter affidavit. A letter sent by Enquiry Officer dated 07.08.1997 required petitioner to make available
copies of certain letters which was also replied by petitioner on 07.08.1997. Thereafter case of petitioner is
that no date, place or time was fixed for oral enquiry and no oral enquiry was conducted at all. Enquiry Officer
submitted report, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-8 to writ petition, but it is also undated. In the
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

counter affidavit also no date of enquiry has been discussed. Petitioner retired on 31.01.1998 after attaining
age of superannuation. Show cause notice along copy of enquiry report was forwarded to petitioner on
17.03.1998.(Para 7)

Held (Paras:- 20-24)
1.Impugned order of punishment also shows that till the retirement, enquiry had not completed and if that be
so there was no reason as to why an oral enquiry was not conducted by Enquiry Officer. No reason has been
given therefor and counter affidavit is completely silent on this aspect.

2.There is another aspect of the matter. If the enquiry is conducted under Article 351 of CSR, punishment
permissible therein can only be inflicted if retired employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or to have
caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence during service. Impugned order shows that
attached Primary School, Daulatpur of Sant Ramraj Goswami Junior High School, Daulatpur was not grant-inaid and, therefore, Teachers and non-teaching Staff was unauthorizedly and illegally paid salary from State
exchequer from January' 1991 to July' 1991 and loss suffered by State is attributable to petitioner. This is
obviously a serious matter and therefore also departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with procedure
prescribed ought to have been conducted, but the same has not been conducted. Meaning thereby petitioner
has not been given adequate opportunity of defence and enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with
Article 351A of CSR read with U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as "Rules, 1999) which provides procedure to hold enquiry.

## Text

8 All. Ram Niyadi Rai Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
477
(2016) 8 ILRA 477
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

Writ A No.- 14108 Of 2004

Ram Niyadi Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
G.K. Singh, V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., M.A.Qadeer

Civil Services Regulations - Article 351-A - disciplinary enquiry after retirement - reduction of pension
- forfeiture of gratuity - departmental enquiry - oral enquiry - opportunity to cross-examine witnesses -
principles of natural justice - quasi-judicial proceeding - major punishment - enquiry not conducted in
accordance with procedure - punishment order set aside.

The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.02.2004 passed by respondent-1 imposing punishment
of reduction of pension by fifty per cent and forfeiture of entire gratuity.(Para 2)

Petitioner was working as Accounts Officer in the Office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari and retired on 31.01.1998.
Before his retirement, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 17.01.1997 which was replied by him and
thereafter Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report which has culminated in the impugned order of
punishment.(Para 3)

Counsel for petitioner submitted that enquiry has been continued after retirement of petitioner under Article
351-A of Civil Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CSR"), which provides that procedure for
enquiry would be same as is applicable in the case of major penalty but in the present case, no date, time or
place for oral enquiry was ever fixed and after receiving reply from petitioner, Enquiry Officer submitted
enquiry report and thereafter punishment order has been passed. In this regard, specific averment has been
made in para 20 of writ petition.(Para 4)

In the present case, charge-sheet was issued to petitioner which is undated but it is said in para 13 of writ
petition that the same was served on 17.01.1997. This is admitted in para 7 of counter affidavit. Petitioner
submitted reply on 28.01.1997 as said in para 15 of writ petition and that is also not denied in para 9 of
counter affidavit. A letter sent by Enquiry Officer dated 07.08.1997 required petitioner to make available
copies of certain letters which was also replied by petitioner on 07.08.1997. Thereafter case of petitioner is
that no date, place or time was fixed for oral enquiry and no oral enquiry was conducted at all. Enquiry Officer
submitted report, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-8 to writ petition, but it is also undated. In the
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

counter affidavit also no date of enquiry has been discussed. Petitioner retired on 31.01.1998 after attaining
age of superannuation. Show cause notice along copy of enquiry report was forwarded to petitioner on
17.03.1998.(Para 7)

Held (Paras:- 20-24)
1.Impugned order of punishment also shows that till the retirement, enquiry had not completed and if that be
so there was no reason as to why an oral enquiry was not conducted by Enquiry Officer. No reason has been
given therefor and counter affidavit is completely silent on this aspect.

2.There is another aspect of the matter. If the enquiry is conducted under Article 351 of CSR, punishment
permissible therein can only be inflicted if retired employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or to have
caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence during service. Impugned order shows that
attached Primary School, Daulatpur of Sant Ramraj Goswami Junior High School, Daulatpur was not grant-inaid and, therefore, Teachers and non-teaching Staff was unauthorizedly and illegally paid salary from State
exchequer from January' 1991 to July' 1991 and loss suffered by State is attributable to petitioner. This is
obviously a serious matter and therefore also departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with procedure
prescribed ought to have been conducted, but the same has not been conducted. Meaning thereby petitioner
has not been given adequate opportunity of defence and enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with
Article 351A of CSR read with U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as "Rules, 1999) which provides procedure to hold enquiry.

3.When confronted, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the above proposition of law and also could
not controvert that in the case in hand, no oral enquiry has been conducted at all.

4.In these facts and circumstances, the impugned order is patently illegal and in utter violation of principles of
nature justice and also the procedure prescribed in the Rules.

5.In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.02.2004 is hereby set aside.
Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits..

Case Law discussed:
1.Gopi Chand Bishnoi v. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (4) AWC 3591 - para 8
2.Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 - para 10
3.State of U.P. v. C. S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 - para 11
4.Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 - para 12
5. A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ 396 - para 12
6.Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ 78 (SC) - para 12
7.S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 212 - para 13
8.Subhas Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 - para 14
9. Subhas Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills and others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 - para 15
10.State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 - para 16
11.Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 - para 17
12.Rajesh Prasad Mishra v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others, 2010 (1) UPLBEC 216 - para
18
13.State of U.P. and another v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 - para 18
14.Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2012 (1) UPLBEC 166 - para 19
15.Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3) ESC 1667 - para 19
16.Laturi Singh v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others, Writ Petition No.12939of 2001 - para 19

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
8 All. Ram Niyadi Rai Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
479
&
Hon'ble Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for respondent no. 1.

2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.02.2004 passed by respondent-1
imposing punishment of reduction of pension by fifty per cent and forfeiture of entire gratuity.

3. Petitioner was working as Accounts Officer in the Office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari and
retired on 31.01.1998. Before his retirement, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 17.01.1997 which
was replied by him and thereafter Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report which has culminated in
the impugned order of punishment.

4. Counsel for petitioner submitted that enquiry has been continued after retirement of
petitioner under Article 351-A of Civil Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CSR"), which
provides that procedure for enquiry would be same as is applicable in the case of major penalty but in
the present case, no date, time or place for oral enquiry was ever fixed and after receiving reply from
petitioner, Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report and thereafter punishment order has been passed.
In this regard, specific averment has been made in para 20 of writ petition.

5. State has replied para 20 of writ petition in para 12 of counter affidavit by denying the
same and stating that full opportunity was given. When called upon, learned Standing Counsel could
not tell as to in what manner opportunity was given.

6. In fact, various averments contained in counter affidavit and in particular para-10 shows
that petitioner's reply is said to have been fully examined by Enquiry Officer and thereafter enquiry
report was submitted which shows that no oral enquiry, whatsoever, has been conducted.

7. In the present case, charge-sheet was issued to petitioner which is undated but it is said in
para 13 of writ petition that the same was served on 17.01.1997. This is admitted in para 7 of counter
affidavit. Petitioner submitted reply on 28.01.1997 as said in para 15 of writ petition and that is also
not denied in para 9 of counter affidavit. A letter sent by Enquiry Officer dated 07.08.1997 required
petitioner to make available copies of certain letters which was also replied by petitioner on
07.08.1997. Thereafter case of petitioner is that no date, place or time was fixed for oral enquiry and
no oral enquiry was conducted at all. Enquiry Officer submitted report, copy whereof has been filed
as Annexure-8 to writ petition, but it is also undated. In the counter affidavit also no date of enquiry
has been discussed. Petitioner retired on 31.01.1998 after attaining age of superannuation. Show
cause notice along copy of enquiry report was forwarded to petitioner on 17.03.1998.

8. As per provisions of Article 351A of CSR, if a disciplinary enquiry has been instituted
before retirement of Government Servant, the same shall continue in accordance with procedure
applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service can be made. This is evident
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

from Regulation 351A CSR read in entirety along with proviso (a)(iii). This is what has been said by
this Court also in Gopi Chand Bishnoi Vs. State of U.P. and another 2007 (4) AWC 3591. In the
present case, it is evident that enquiry has not been conducted in such as manner.

9. It has been held repeatedly that an enquiry which may lead to punishment of dismissal
would include necessarily an oral enquiry and it is mandatory.

10. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. The workmen., AIR 1963 SC 1719, Supreme Court
observed "It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know
not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given
a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way
to cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against
him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be
substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted.

11. In State of U.P. v. C. S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158, Court held that omission to give
opportunity to the officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the
proceedings. Court also held that in the enquiry, witnesses have to be examined in support of the
allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to
lead evidence in his defence.

12. In Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160, (vide para
66), Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of charge-sheeted
employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. Same view was taken in
A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their
Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 78 (SC).

13. In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212, Court set aside
a dismissal order which was passed without giving employee an opportunity of cross-examination.

14. This Court in Subhas Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000(1)
UPLBEC 541, said:-

"In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have
been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of
the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have
been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own
witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the
enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's service should have not
been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry
was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet he
was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion this
8 All. Ram Niyadi Rai Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
481
was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no
date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion the
impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice."

(emphasis added)

15. The above judgment was followed by another Division Bench in Subhas Chandra
Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills and others reported 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 where
Court held:

"In cases where a major punishment proposed to be imposed an oral enquiry is a
must, whether the employee request, for it or not. For this it is necessary to issue a notice to the
employee concerned intimating him date, time and place of the enquiry as held by the Division Bench
of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541, against
which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16-8-2000." (emphasis added)

16. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported (2010) 2 SCC 772 Court
said :-

"An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary
authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in
the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold
that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since
no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been
taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.

When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot
be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed
mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be
observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules
of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may
culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service."

(emphasis added)

17. Similar view was taken in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC
570 where Court said:

"Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The
enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer
must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking
into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated
to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said
documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not
have been treated as evidence."

(emphasis added)

18. One of us (Justice Sudhir Agarwal) in Rajesh Prasad Mishra v. Commissioner, Jhansi
Division, Jhansi and others reported 2010 (1) UPLBEC 216 observed, as under, after detail
analysis of authorities on the subject:

"Now coming to the question, what is the effect of non-holding of oral inquiry, I find
that, in a case where the inquiry officer is appointed, oral inquiry is mandatory. The charges are not
deemed to be proved suo motu merely on account of levelling them by means of the charge sheet
unless the same are proved by the department before the inquiry officer and only thereafter it is the
turn of delinquent employee to place his defence. Holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing
a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1)
LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing
Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541."

19. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2012 (1) UPLBEC 166, a
Division Bench of this Court, after survey of law on this issue, observed as under:

"It is well settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner
that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment
awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that
very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure
prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless
those procedures are followed, any out come inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges
are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support
from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ
831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director
& another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541.

A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2008 (3) ESC 1667 held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which
can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment has observed as
under:-

" 10....... Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to
the root of the case.
8 All. Ram Niyadi Rai Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
483
11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing
Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541, considering the question as to whether holding of an
oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles
of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subash Chandra
Sharma Vs. U.P.Cooperative Spinning Mills & others, 2001 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1475 and Laturi Singh
Vs U.P.Public Service Tribunal & others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 06.05.2005."

(emphasis added)

20. Impugned order of punishment also shows that till the retirement, enquiry had not
completed and if that be so there was no reason as to why an oral enquiry was not conducted by
Enquiry Officer. No reason has been given therefor and counter affidavit is completely silent on this
aspect.

21. There is another aspect of the matter. If the enquiry is conducted under Article 351 of
CSR, punishment permissible therein can only be inflicted if retired employee is found guilty of grave
misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence during
service. Impugned order shows that attached Primary School, Daulatpur of Sant Ramraj Goswami
Junior High School, Daulatpur was not grant-in-aid and, therefore, Teachers and non-teaching Staff
was unauthorizedly and illegally paid salary from State exchequer from January' 1991 to July' 1991
and loss suffered by State is attributable to petitioner. This is obviously a serious matter and therefore
also departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with procedure prescribed ought to have been
conducted, but the same has not been conducted. Meaning thereby petitioner has not been given
adequate opportunity of defence and enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with Article 351A
of CSR read with U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as "Rules, 1999) which provides procedure to hold enquiry.

22. When confronted, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the above proposition of
law and also could not controvert that in the case in hand, no oral enquiry has been conducted at all.

23. In these facts and circumstances, the impugned order is patently illegal and in utter
violation of principles of nature justice and also the procedure prescribed in the Rules.

24. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.02.2004 is hereby set
aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
------------
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 484
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

Writ A No.- 19656 Of 2005

Anant Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Surendra Prasad, A.D.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govind Saran, Kaushlesh Pratap Singh

Article 226 Constitution of India - casual labour - Black smith - North Eastern Railway -
regularization - Group-C post - Group-D post - Railway Board Circular dated 3.9.1996 - promotional post
- regularization against feeder cadre - Tribunal - writ petition - no infirmity or illegality - writ petition
dismissed.

Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated
31.12.1997 passed by Chief Administrative Officer ( Construction), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and
against judgment and order dated 7.12.2004 whereby Original Application No. 1421 of 1998 filed by
petitioners has been dismissed.(Para 2)

It appears that petitioners were engaged as casual labour (Black smith) in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur
in the between 1978 to 1981. In 1982, petitioners were retrenched pursuant to Chief Engineer's order dated
14th April, 1992. Thereafter, respondents further engaged some casual workers in a project and consequent
thereto, petitioners were engaged as casual labour ( Black smith). One of such order dated 24.11.1989 in
respect to petitioner no. 3 is on record. Petitioners continued to work and after completion of six months, they
were granted regular pay scale as also temporary status.(Para 3)

Question of regularization was considered by Railway Board and we find that in this regard Railway Board
issued a circular on 3.9.1996 and in reference thereto petitioners were also considered for regularization as
Group-D employee and vide order dated 31.12.1997 petitioners were regularized in Group-D against newly
created workcharged post.(Para 4)

Against aforesaid order dated 31.12.1997, original application was filed by petitioners before Tribunal,
Gorakhpur on the ground that petitioners having discharged their duties as casual labour against posts which
are in Group-C, they ought to have been regularized in Group-C and not Group-D post.(Para 5)

Held (Paras:- 9-11)