# Ramesh Chandra Bari & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 465
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-31
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 11282 of 2018
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-bari-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-52878
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

A. Labour Law - Regular appointment -
Once
the
objections
regarding
the
eligibility of the writ petitioners stands
decided by a judicial forum and the same
has attained finality by dismissal of the
writ petition preferred by the respondentrailways then the same cannot be used as
a tool to deny the benefits to the writ
petitioners.

The respondents are again raising same
objections questioning the eligibility of writ
petitioners
while
alleging
that
the
writ
petitioners do not possess 120 days of minimum
required engagement, there had been no ex
post facto approval of the General Manager,
they are overage and the judgment in the case
of Uma Devi (infra) would come in their way.
Apparently, barring the said objections no new
objections have been raised which goes into the
root of the matter regarding the eligibility of the
writ petitioners and the position being so the
Tribunal was not justified in negating the claim
of the writ petitioners. (Para 23, 25)

It is not open for the respondent-railways
to question the suitability of the writ
petitioners on the grounds which had
already been adjudicated. Might be, there
appears
to
be
certain
relevant
grounds
regarding the objection to the suitability of a
candidate which in the facts and circumstances
of the case may occur due to various factors,
however, in the present case, the same old
objections are being raised questioning the
eligibility of the writ petitioners. (Para 28)

In the present case there happens to be a
positive finding in favour of the writ petitioners
holding them to be eligible and the only task
which was entrusted to the respondent-railways
by virtue of the order of the Tribunal in the
earlier spell of litigation was to declare their
result, in case, they were successful, but by no
stretch of imagination it can be said to have
granted any leverage to the respondent-railways
to reopen the issues which had already been
decided. (Para 30)

The original applicant, has expired and rest of
the writ petitioners as on date are beyond the
prescribed
age
for
being
accorded
temporary/regular
status.
Since
the
writ
petitioners are out of employment for a long
time, for several decades, thus, it would not be
appropriate to issue direction for according
regular status to them. The writ petitioners had
been agitating their claims before the judicial
forums
and
they
possess
positive
order
declaring them to be eligible coupled with an
order for declaration of results and the fact that
the objections raised by the respondent-railways
regarding the entitlement of the writ petitioners
are the same which stood adjudicated by the
Court of law and there is no new and valid
objections available on record so as to deny
benefits to the writ petitioners, thus, as per the
overall facts and circumstances of the case
appropriate
compensation
in
lieu
of
reinstatement is awarded. (Para 32)

The judgment and order dated 16.02.2018
passed in OA No. 330/00370 of 2015 is set
aside. The relief for issuance of the appointment
order to the writ petitioners against the regular
vacancies in pursuance of the notification dated
17.12.2005 and the screening test held in the
year 2007 is declined. (Para 33)

Writ petition partly allowed. (E-4)
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Precedent followed:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,916 of 64,799. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39916 for what follows._

1 All. Ramesh Chandra Bari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
465
(2025) 1 ILRA 465
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 11282 of 2018

Ramesh Chandra Bari & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Aparna Burman, Birendra Kumar Mishra,
Diwan Saifullah Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dileep Kumar Pandey, Rajnish Kumar Rai,
Vivek Kumar Rai

A. Labour Law - Regular appointment -
Once
the
objections
regarding
the
eligibility of the writ petitioners stands
decided by a judicial forum and the same
has attained finality by dismissal of the
writ petition preferred by the respondentrailways then the same cannot be used as
a tool to deny the benefits to the writ
petitioners.

The respondents are again raising same
objections questioning the eligibility of writ
petitioners
while
alleging
that
the
writ
petitioners do not possess 120 days of minimum
required engagement, there had been no ex
post facto approval of the General Manager,
they are overage and the judgment in the case
of Uma Devi (infra) would come in their way.
Apparently, barring the said objections no new
objections have been raised which goes into the
root of the matter regarding the eligibility of the
writ petitioners and the position being so the
Tribunal was not justified in negating the claim
of the writ petitioners. (Para 23, 25)

It is not open for the respondent-railways
to question the suitability of the writ
petitioners on the grounds which had
already been adjudicated. Might be, there
appears
to
be
certain
relevant
grounds
regarding the objection to the suitability of a
candidate which in the facts and circumstances
of the case may occur due to various factors,
however, in the present case, the same old
objections are being raised questioning the
eligibility of the writ petitioners. (Para 28)

In the present case there happens to be a
positive finding in favour of the writ petitioners
holding them to be eligible and the only task
which was entrusted to the respondent-railways
by virtue of the order of the Tribunal in the
earlier spell of litigation was to declare their
result, in case, they were successful, but by no
stretch of imagination it can be said to have
granted any leverage to the respondent-railways
to reopen the issues which had already been
decided. (Para 30)

The original applicant, has expired and rest of
the writ petitioners as on date are beyond the
prescribed
age
for
being
accorded
temporary/regular
status.
Since
the
writ
petitioners are out of employment for a long
time, for several decades, thus, it would not be
appropriate to issue direction for according
regular status to them. The writ petitioners had
been agitating their claims before the judicial
forums
and
they
possess
positive
order
declaring them to be eligible coupled with an
order for declaration of results and the fact that
the objections raised by the respondent-railways
regarding the entitlement of the writ petitioners
are the same which stood adjudicated by the
Court of law and there is no new and valid
objections available on record so as to deny
benefits to the writ petitioners, thus, as per the
overall facts and circumstances of the case
appropriate
compensation
in
lieu
of
reinstatement is awarded. (Para 32)

The judgment and order dated 16.02.2018
passed in OA No. 330/00370 of 2015 is set
aside. The relief for issuance of the appointment
order to the writ petitioners against the regular
vacancies in pursuance of the notification dated
17.12.2005 and the screening test held in the
year 2007 is declined. (Para 33)

Writ petition partly allowed. (E-4)
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Precedent followed:

1. Narpat Singh Vs Rajasthan Financial Corp.,
2007 INSC 969; AIR 2008 SC 77 (Para 7)

2. U.O.I. Vs Shri Praveen Kumar & ors., Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 22808 of 2003, decided
on 22.05.2003 (Para 26)

Precedent distinguished:

U.O.I. & ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & ors., Writ-A No.
1006 of 2016, decided on 04.02.2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1.
Impugned
in
the
present
proceedings at the instance of Ramesh
Chandra Bari (since deceased) through its
legal heirs and 13 others (in short 'writ
petitioners') is an order dated 16.02.2018
passed
in
Original
Application
No.
330/00370 of 2015 (Raj Bahadur Singh and
24 others vs. Union of India & 4 others)
passed by Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short
'Tribunal')
whereby
the
original
application preferred by the original
applicants/writ petitioners questioning the
Screening Test Result dated 18.04.2013
declaring them unsuccessful and for a
direction to consider the case for regular
appointment was rejected.

2. The facts of the case as discernible
from the records are that the writ
petitioners claim to have worked in broken
spells as casual labour in Railways while
completing more than 120 days of
engagement making them eligible for
assignment of regular status. According to
the
writ
petitioners,
the
respondentrailways published a notification in widely
circulated newspaper Amar Ujala on
17.12.2005 requiring the ex-casual labours
to appear for screening for according
regular
appointments
against
clear
vacancies. As per the notification dated
17.12.2005 those ex-casual labours who
were engaged in the Railways for the
period of 120 days and at the time of their
induction they were not more than 28 years
of age were to be considered for regular
appointment.
The
notification
further
provided that there was a relaxation in the
upper age limit for General Category 40
years, OBC 43 years and SC/ST 45 years,
the cut off date for determining eligibility
was 01.01.2006 and the last date of
submission of the application forms was
15.01.2006. The writ petitioners who
claimed to be the ex-casual labours who
were assigned works in different spells
participated in the screening test which was
conducted from 10.10.2007 to 16.11.2007
along
with
others
totaling
to
359
candidates. The results of the screening test
was declared on 10.12.2007 wherein only
one candidate namely Avinishi Prasad was
declared successful. The writ petitioners
being aggrieved against non declaration of
their
results
preferred
representations/request letters but the same
remained undecided compelling them to
prefer OA No. 738 of 2009 and OA No.
741 of 2009 seeking relief for declaration
of the result of the screening test and for
according regular status of the services, in
case, they were successful.

3. The aforesaid original applications
came to be disposed of granting liberty to
the writ petitioners to prefer representation
for
redressal
of
the
grievances.
Subsequently
on
10.09.2009
and
07.09.2009 the representations preferred by
the writ petitioners came to be rejected.

4. Questioning the same, the writ
petitioners preferred OA No. 1568 of 2009
(Ramesh Chandra Bari & 18 others Vs.
Union of India) before the Tribunal which
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Bari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
467
was connected with OA No. 1233 of 2009
(Raj Bahadur Singh and 13 others vs.
Union of India and another) which after
exchange of the affidavits came to be
decided on 12.05.2011, relevant extract
thereof is being quoted hereinunder:-

6. It is an admitted fact that
Railway Board issued several notification
for absorption/regularization of the excasual labour; annexure-A-2 is the extract
of relevant rules from R.E.M. Vol.Il this is
the copy of the notification/circular letters
issued
by
the
Railway
Board
for
regularization/absorption of the ex-casual
labour, it has been published in rules 20012007 of chapter XX of R.E.M. Vol.lI. It is
also material that the respondents have not
disputed issuing of these circular letters by
the Railway Board in para No.3 (iv) of the
Counter Affidavit it has been admitted by
the respondents that there is rule regarding
absorption/re-engagement/regularization
of ex-casual labour available in I.R.E.M.
Vol.-II (1990 Edition) in para 2001 to
2007. Hence admittedly there was a scheme
framed by the Railway Board in pursuance
of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Indra Pal Yadav that the excasual labour should be regularized
providedly
they
are
fulfilling
the
conditions. From perusal of the order
passed
by
the
respondents
on
the
representation of the applicants and from
perusal of the Counter Reply it is evident
that the respondents have not denied from
the fact that there is no scheme or policy
issued
by
the
Railway
Board
for
regularization/absorption of the ex- casual
labour, who are fulfilling the requisite
qualifications. But the representation of the
applicants' was rejected merely on the
basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court delivered in the case of Uma Devi. It
has also been admitted by the respondents
that
vide
notification
annexure-A-4
applications were invited by the respondent
No.2 from the ex-casual labour for
regularization/absorptions providedly they
are fulfilling the requisite qualifications.
There is also extract of Newspaper (Amar
Ujala) dated 17th December, 2005 inviting
applications from the ex-casual labour for
regularization/absorption those who had
put in 120 days as ex-casual labour in
broken spells and were at least 28 years of
age at the time of initial appointment and
certain relaxation of age shall also be
admissible to the ex-casual labour. The
maximum age of the ex-casual labour 40
years
(General
Category),
43years
(O.B.C.) and 45years (S.C./S.T.). The last
date of submission of application on the
prescribed format was 15th January, 2006.
It has not been alleged by the respondents
and also it has been alleged in the order
passed by the respondent No.2 that these
applicants were eligible to participate in
the screening test in pursuance of the
notification issued in the Newspaper (Amar
Ujala) and pasted on the notice board of
the office. It has also not been alleged that
these applicants are above the maximum
age limit. But the representation of the
applicants' was rejected merely on the
ground that; a judgment was delivered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma
Devi and in view of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court applicants can not
claim regularization/absorption as a matter
of right, efforts have also been made by the
respondents in order to allege that
applicants'
appointment
was
not
in
accordance
with
law
and
their
appointments were irregular and they
cannot be regularized and accordingly
representation
was
rejected
and
the
applicants were also not found fit for
absorption. It is not a case of the
respondents that the applicants were not
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fulfilling
the
requisite
qualification
provided in the circular letters of the
Railway Board for regularization of the excasual labour and also in the notification
published and pasted on 17th December,
2005/21st December, 2005. It is also an
admitted
fact
that
the
applicants
participated in the screening test in the
month of the October, 2007 it means that
the applicants were fulfilling all the
requisite qualifications as prescribed in the
Railway
Board's
scheme
and
also
notification issued by the respondent No. 2.

7. The perusal of the Counter
Reply shows that the stand of the
respondent is not clear and respondents
are blowing hot and cold in the same
breath that they admitted that Railway
Board
issued
circular
letters
for
regularization/absorption of the ex-casual
labours. On different dates respondents
have admitted that the applications were
invited from the ex-casual labour by
D.R.M., Allahabad. And the applicants'
submitted application well within time and
they faced the screening test. But at the
same time the respondents alleged that the
appointment
of
the
applicants
was
irregular and hence they were not found fit
for regularization, but how the appointment
of the applicants as casual labour was
irregular has not been shown. Because a
judgment has been delivered by Hon'ble
Apex Court prohibiting the service of the
ad-hoc employees or the employees who
have been appointed irregularly without
sanction of the competent authority can not
be regularized. But the respondents have
not alleged that there was no policy of the
Railway Board for regularization of the excasual labour who are fulfilling the
requisite
qualification.
And
the
applications were invited from the excasual labour by the respondent No.2 but
at
the
same
rejected
the
application/representation of the applicants
on the law delivered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Uma Devi. Although,
there is no case of the respondents that
these applicants were overage or they were
not fulfilling the requisite qualification on
the date of the submission of application
form in pursuance of the notification, hence
I am of the opinion that the eligibility of the
applicants was not disputed by the
respondents.........

10. Admittedly, there was a policy
and scheme of the Railway. It was framed
in pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Indra Pal Yadav
and subsequently reiterated in different
other
judgments.
Under
these
circumstances in my opinion the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Uma Devi is not applicable to ex-casual
labour borne on casual live register,
because for regularization/absorption of
these casual labours there is a policy of the
Railway Board and that applicants also
submitted applications fulfilling requisite
qualification on the date of submission of
application form in pursuance of the
notification issued by Respondent No.2.
Only result is to be declared of the
screening test and when the applicants
were permitted to participate in the
screening test hence presumption can be
drawn that these applicants were fulfilling
all the requisite qualification and entitled
to be participated in the screening test,
then result must be declared of the
screening test and the respondents cannot
be permitted to reject the application of the
applicants for absorption/regularization
submitted in pursuance of the notification
issued by Respondent No.2 and the
respondent No.2 also alleged that the
applications are being invited in pursuance
of the Railway Board's policy.
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Bari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
469

12. Hence perusal of the order
shows that the representation of the
applicant was rejected merely on the
ground of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi
and also in view of the judgment laid down
by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.
But
in
the
matter
of
regularization/absorption of the ex-casual
labour who submitted their application in
pursuance of the notification issued by
Respondent No.2 in pursuance of the policy
of the Railway Board their representation
cannot be rejected merely on the ground of
law and in my opinion result of the
screening test must be declared.

13. For the reasons mentioned
above I am of the opinion that the
representation of the applicants was
rejected only on the basis of the judgment
of Hon'ble High and Hon'ble Apex Court in
violation of the policy/scheme of the
Railway Board for regularization of the excasual labour born on the live casual
labour register. Because the representation
was not rejected on the ground that the
applicants were not fit or not eligible as
per policy of the Railway Board to
participate in the screening test rather the
applicants were permitted to participate in
the screening test and this fact itself shows
that the applicants were found eligible to
participate in the screening test hence the
respondent No.2 had illegally rejected the
representation of the applicant on the
ground
not
available
to
him.
The
regularization/absorption had not been
claimed as matter of right it is being
claimed in pursuance of the policy/scheme
of the Railway Board. It is immaterial that
the applicants were not engaged as casual
labour
after
conducting
the
proper
selection. Because the Railway Board
framed policy in pursuance of the direction
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Indra Pal Yadav for regularization of the
ex-casual labours and the policy updated
from time to time and the applications were
invited from the ex-casual labours for
screening test. O.A. deserves to be allowed
and the order deserves to be quashed.

14. O.As. are allowed, order
dated 17th September, 2009 (in O.A. No.
1568 of 2009) and impugned order dated
10th September, 2009 (in O.A. No. 1233 of
2009) passed by the respondent No.2 on the
representation of the applicants AnnexureA-1 are quashed. The respondent is further
directed to declare the result of the
screening test held in the month of October,
2007 in pursuance of the notification dated
21 December, 2005 Annexure-A-5, and in
case the applicants were found successful
in the screening test then they must be
regularized as per their service record and
according to rules. The respondents are
directed to declare the result of the
screening test within a period of two
months from the date when the copy of this
order is produced before them, and within
that period the applicants who are found
successful they shall also be regularized
and engaged. The applicants shall Produce
the copy of this order before the respondent
No.2 forthwith. No order as to costs."

5. It is also the case of the writ
petitioners that the order of the Tribunal
passed in OA Nos. 1568 of 2009 and 1233
of 2009 was not implemented by the
respondent-Railways which constrained the
writ petitioners to file execution application
No. 12 of 2011 before the Tribunal. The
respondents-railways
being
aggrieved
against the judgment and order of the
Tribunal dated 12.05.2011 passed in OA
Nos. 1568 of 2009 and 1233 of 2009
approached the Hon'ble High Court by way
of filing Writ-A No. 49441 of 2011
(Union of India through G.M. N.C.R. &
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh & others)
wherein on 30.08.2011 the following orders
were passed.-

"1. The respondents had worked
with the Railways in the past. Subsequently
they were called for the screening test to be
held on 12.10.2010. The screening test was
held but the result was not declared.

2. The respondents filed OA No.
741
of
2009
before
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. It was
disposed of on 7.8.2009, granting liberty to
them
to
file
a
representation.
The
respondents filed representation. It was
dismissed on 10.9.2009. The respondents
filed another OA No. 1568 of 2009. It was
allowed on 12.5.2011. Hence the present
writ petition.

3. We have heard the counsel for
the parties.

4. It is not disputed that the
screening test was held and it was not
cancelled by the petitioner. The Tribunal
has merely directed to declare the result
and in case the respondents are successful
in the test they may be given the benefit
according to the rules. There is no
illegality in the judgment.

5. The writ petition has no merit.
It is dismissed."

6. Another writ petition was also
preferred
by
the
respondent-railways,
Writ-A No. 48102 of 2011 (Union of
India through G.M. N.C.R. & another
Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bari) in which on
24.08.2012, the following order was
passed.-

"Sri A.K.Gaur, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that this petition
has become infructuous and the same be
dismissed as not pressed.

This petition is dismissed as not
pressed."

7. In the execution application No. 12
of 2011, series of orders were passed one of
which was on 05.10.2012 for attaching the
bank account for the purpose of execution
of the order of the Tribunal passed on
original side. The said order was subject to
challenge at the instance of the respondentrailways while filing Writ-A No. 6879 of
2013 (Union of India through G.M.
N.C.R.
and
another
Vs.
Ramesh
Chandra Bari & Others) in which on
12.02.2013 the following orders were
passed.-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and have perused the record.

This case has a chequered
history. In the year 2009, Original
Applications No. 1233 and 1568 were filed
by the respondents herein which were
allowed on 12.5.2011 with the following
directions:-

" OAs are allowed. Order dated
17th September 2009 (in OA No. 1568 of
2009) and impugned order dated 10th
September 2009 (in OA No. 1233 of 2009)
passed by the respondent no. 2 on the
representation of the applicants Annexure
A-1 are quashed. The respondent no.1 is
further directed to declare the result of the
screening test held in the month of October
2007 in pursuance of the notification dated
21st December 2005 Annexure A-5 and in
case the applicants were found successful
in the screening test then they must be
regularized as per their service record and
according to Rules. The respondents are
directed to declare the result of the
screening test within a period of two
months from the date when the copy of this
order is produced before them, and within
that period the applicants who are found
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Bari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
471
successful they shall also be regularized
and engaged. The applicants shall produce
the copy of this order before the respondent
No.23 forthwith. No order as to costs."

Challenging the said order the
petitioner-Union of India filed Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 49441 of 2011 which was
dismissed by order dated 24.8.2012 at the
admission stage itself with the following
directions:-

"It is not disputed that the
screening test was held and it was not
cancelled by the petitioner. The Tribunal
has merely directed to declare the result
and in case the respondents are successful
in the test they may be given the benefit
according to the rules. There is no
illegality in the judgment."

Once the petition was dismissed,
it was obligatory on the part of the
petitioners-herein to comply with the
directions dated 12.5.2011 issued by the
Tribunal. When the said directions were
not complied with, the respondents filed
Execution application No. 12 of 2011
which was decided on 5.10.2012. The
petitioner had taken a stand in the
execution case that on 24.2.2012 two
persons were declared successful and by
implication the others were unsuccessful.
Sri A.K.Gaur, learned counsel for the
petitioners, states that by declaration of the
result of successful candidates the order
dated 12.5.2011 had been complied with.
Such submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioners has been taken note of in the
order dated 5.10.2012 passed in the
execution case whereby, after considering
all the pleas, the Tribunal observed that
"the order dated 12.5.2011 has not yet been
fully complied with in letter and spirit. The
intention of the execution application is to
concretize the relief that has been bestowed
on the applicants by virtue of order dated
27.10.2007. Therefore, one last opportunity
is given to the respondents to disclose the
result
as
are
available
with
them
consequent upon the screening held on
27.10.207 with regard to all the candidates
of O.A. Nos. 1568/09 and 1233/09 within a
period of three months and thereafter taken
action
for
their
regularization
in
accordance with relevant Rules". Sri Gaur
has specifically stated that the said order
dated 5.10.2012 is not being challenged
even though such a prayer has been made.
What is under challenge in the present
petition is the subsequent order dated
30.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal on a
correction
application
filed
by
the
respondents. By the said order the Tribunal
has fixed a date for filing a compliance
report. What is contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that once
execution application had been disposed of,
the Tribunal had become functus officio
and could not have fixed a date for filing of
the compliance report. In support of his
submission
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner relies on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Narpat Singh vs.
Rajasthan Financial Corporation AIR 2008
SC 77. We have gone through the aforesaid
order of the Apex Court and are of the
opinion that the facts of the said case are
not applicable to the present case as in the
present case all what has been directed by
the Tribunal is that the compliance of their
order be made within three months as had
already directed by the order dated
5.10.2012. No further directions have been
issued and only a report of compliance has
been called for. Even otherwise, we would
not be inclined to exercise our extra
ordinary
discretionary
jurisdiction
in
favour of a petitioner who takes up a
technical ground for not complying with
the directions issued by the Tribunal and
comes up with a plea for not complying
with the directions on the ground that the
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to pass
any further order after 5.10.2012 even
though the said order may be only for
reporting compliance of the parent order
i.e. 5.10.2012.

In such view of the matter, we
dismiss this petition and direct the
petitioners to declare the result forthwith.
In case the compliance of the order dated
5.10.2012 is made within a period of two
months from today, the same shall be
treated as sufficient compliance of the said
order."

8.
In
the
execution
application
application No. 12 of 2011, the Tribunal
after perusing the record so produced by
the respondent-railways proceeded to pass
an order dated 25.07.2013 which reads as
under.-

"Shri
T.S.
Pandey,
learned
counsel for the applicant. Shri K.P. Singh,
along with Shri B. Tiwari, learned counsel
for the respondents.

As per the court's direction Shri
Jata Shankar Tripathi, was present in court
with original records.

On perusal of the original record,
it is found that applicants herein in this
original application, almost everybody is
found suitable in the screening except two
or three persons who were declared
unsuitable.

The respondents are directed to
file an affidavit before this court clarifying
how the applicants herein have become
ineligible after being found suitable, what
was the basis of their being unsuitable after
being found suitable in comparison of who
are found eligible.

List
on
29.08.2013.
The
respondents are directed to place the
photocopy of the entire screening report
before this court.

The counsel for the applicant Mr.
T.S. Pandey objected about the verification
of number of days. The applicants are
directed to make photocopy of their Identity
Card through which it can be proved that
how long they are working.

Copy of the order be given Dasti
to counsel for the respondents."

9. The respondent-railways filed their
objection in the proceedings in execution
application No. 12 of 2011 while coming
up with the stand that the order passed in
OA Nos. 1568 of 2009 and 1233 of 2009
stands complied with, since, in the
screening test result declared on 18.04.2013
the writ petitioners were found to be
unsuitable. Taking note of the said fact, the
tribunal
disposed
of
the
execution
application No. 12 of 2011 on 03.09.2014
observing that since a fresh cause of action
has arisen so it is left open for the writ
petitioners to take recourse to the law if so
advised. The order dated 03.09.2014 passed
in execution application No. 12 of 2011 is
being quoted hereinunder.-

"This is an application made by
the applicants who happened to be a
section not only the most downtrodden
members of our teeming society but also
among those who have been consistently
given raw deals by the powerful on the
higher
ladder
despite
the
Railways
formulating
a
benevolent
piece
of
legislation in order to provide some succer
to these persons who have to put in
hardiest labour in order to feed the hungry
month of the members of their family.

2. On 12.5.2011 a detailed order
was passed by this Tribunal allowing both
the OAs wherein the applicants prayed
before this Tribunal a direction towards the
respondents to declare the result of the
screening test held in the month of October,
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Bari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
473
2007 in pursuance of the notification dated
2.12.2005. They also claimed for giving a
direction to the respondents to provide duty
to the applicants in case they are found
successful in the aforesaid screening test
and
further
consider
them
for
regularization of their services as per the
existing rules.

The OAs were allowed with the
following directions:-

"14. OAs are allowed, order
dated 17th September 2009 (in OA No.1568
of 2009) and impugned order dated 10th
September, 2009 (in OA No.1233 of 2009)
passed by the respondent No.2 on the
representation of the applicant Annexure
A-1 are quashed. The respondent is further
directed to declare the result of the
screening test held in the month of October,
2007 in pursuance of the notification dated
21 December, 2005 Annexure A-5, and in
case the applicants were found successful
in the screening test then they must be
regularized as per their service record and
according to rules. The respondents are
directed to declare the result of the
screening test within a period of two
months from the date when the copy of this
order is produced before them, and within
that period the applicants who are found
successful they shall also be regularized
and engaged. The applicants shall produce
the copy of this order before the respondent
no. 2 forthwith. No order as to costs."

3. I would now like to refer to the
salient features of the judgment rendered
by this Tribunal which in my considered
opinion go to the root of the matter. The
same are therefore set out here under:-

a) That this Tribunal has in
certain terms held that the ex-casual
labourer need not have been engaged or
deployed after specific approval by the
General Manager.

(b)
That
this
Tribunal
has
specifically recorded a finding relating to
non applicability of the Hon'ble Apex
Court's ruling in the case of Uma Devi to
the facts of the present case in the light of
the fact that the applicants once claiming
reliefs by virtue of a specific scheme
framed by the Railway Board to provide
succer to them in terms of regularization
and consequential benefits there under.

c) That in the operative part of
the order there is a categorical direction to
the respondents (Railways) to regularize
the applicants herein subject only to one
condition i.e. their being found successful
in the screening test and no more.

d) That in any case since all that
the applicants are seeking is to have their
decades old grievances ameliorated based
on a development legislation passed by the
Railway Board. In the face of repeated
rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court which
say that a benevolent legislation should
always be interpreted and construed
liberally.

(e) That the Full Bench of this
Tribunal in the case of Mahabir and Others
Versus U.O.I. and Others has categorically
rejected the contention of the Railways that
the Casual Labourer engaged without the
approval of the General Manager cannot
claim to have their names kept in the
casual Labour Register.

4. In the light of the aforesaid
position in fact and law, the conclusion as
emerges is that these labourers are entitled
to regularization merely by virtue of their
being found suitable in the screening, is
inescapable.

5.
Against
this
order
the
respondents filed two writ petitions before
the Hon'ble High Court by Writ petition
No.48102/2011 (U.O.I. and another Versus
Ramesh Chandra Bari & others) and other
W.P. No. 49441 of 2011 (U.O.I. and
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
another Versus Raj Bahadur Singh and
others). The W.P. No. 49441/2011 was
dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. The
respondents proposed to file SLP before the
Hon'ble Apex Court but never filed it.

6. The Hon'ble High Court while
dismissing the W.P. No. 49441/2011 states
as under:-

"4. It is not disputed that the
screening test was held and it was not
cancelled by the petitioner. The Tribunal
has merely directed to declare the result
and in case the respondents are successful
in the test they may be given the benefit
according to the rules. There is no
illegality in the judgment."

7.
The
Writ
Petition
No.48102/2011 was also dismissed on
24.8.2012 which was filed before the
Hon'ble High Court. When the Writ petition
No.49441/2011 was dismissed by the
applicants filed this execution petition
which was disposed of on 5.10.2012 with
the below direction:-

"20. Therefore, I find that the
order dated 12.5.2011 has not yet been
fully complied with in letter and spirit. The
intention of the execution application is to
concretize the relief that has been bestowed
on the applicants by virtue of order dated
27.10.2007. Therefore, one last opportunity
is given to the respondents to disclose the
result
as
are
available
with
them
consequent upon the screening held on
27.10.2007
with
regard
to
all
the
candidates of O.A. Nos.1568/2009 and
1233/2009 within a period of three months
and thereafter taken action for their
regularization in accordance with relevant
Rules.

21. The Execution Application is
disposed
of
with
the
above
observations/directions. No Costs."

8. The respondents again filed
another writ petition No.6879/2013 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. The
Hon'ble
High
Court
on
12.02.2013
dismissed the writ petition with the
observation which is as under:-

"In such view of the matter, we
dismiss this petition and direct the
petitioners to declare the result forthwith.
In case the compliance of the order dated
5.10.2012 is made within a period of two
months from today, the same shall be
treated as sufficient compliance of the said
order."

9. The respondents have now
declared the result and the result was
produced before this Tribunal as per the
order of this Court. The counsel for the
appellants raised various issues about the
screening and also about the result. He has
tried to point out irregularities and
contradiction of multiple affidavits filed on
behalf of the respondents. But the operative
portion of the order was only to declare the
result of the screening test. I have perused
the documents produced before me.

10. But as the result has been
declared and the regularization of service
is a condition precedent if they (applicants)
are found successful hence in an execution
application the court cannot go beyond the
original order passed. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has held in various judgments, if as
per direction of the Tribunal an order has
been passed/complied by the respondents
then it cannot be looked into that it is not in
conformity with a direction issued by the
Tribunal, it gives rise to a fresh cause of
action to the applicant. More so our
powers are, however, also fettered by the
Hon'ble High Court in its order dated
13.2.2013 by recording the last few lines as
follows:-

"........... In case the compliance
of the order dated 5.10.2012 is made within
a period of two months from today, the
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Bari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
475
same
shall
be
treated
as
sufficient
compliance of the said order."

11.
The
order/result
passed/declared
by
the
respondents
unfortunately does not provide any succer
to these unfortunate litigants. An erroneous
order passed bona fide cannot be corrected
either in execution proceedings or in
contempt proceedings. It is, however, given
rise to a fresh cause of action and the
applicants may seek recourse of law if so
advised.
Accordingly,
the
execution
application is disposed of. No-Costs."

10. The writ petitioners thereafter
preferred OA No. 330/00370 of 2015
seeking following reliefs.-

"i. to quash the screening result
declared on 18.04.2013 [Ann- A- 2] in view
of the submission and grounds taken above
at least pertaining to the applicants of the
present OA.

ii. to direct the respondents to
consider
the
applicants
for
regular
appointments in view of the original
report/record of the screening which was
produced before the Hon'ble Tribunal on
25.07.2013 by Sri Jata Shankar Tripathi
and after perusal of the same Hon'ble
Tribunal found that almost every body has
been found suitable except two of three
persons.

iii. to direct the respondents to
issue appointment orders to the applicants
against regular vacancies immediately in
pursuant to the aforesaid and to allow them
duty without any further delay.

Any other order or direction to
which this Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case may also be passed."

11. The original application was
contested by the respondent-railways by
filing their response to which rejoinder
affidavit was also filed. The original
application came up for consideration
before the Tribunal on 09.02.2018 on
which date the Tribunal reserved the
judgment and ultimately by virtue of the
judgment and order dated 16.02.2018 the
original application was dismissed.

12. Questioning the said order, the
writ petitioners have filed the present writ
petition seeking following reliefs.-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction, in the nature of Certiorari to
quash
the
impugned
order
dated
16.02.2018,
passed
by
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
Allahabad
in
original application no. 330/0370 of 2015,
by means of which the original application
of the petitioners has been dismissed.

(b) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to issue
appointment order to the petitioners
against regular vacancies immediately in
pursuance
of
advertisement
dated
17.12.2005 and the screening test held
pursuant thereto i.e. October, 2007.

(c) Issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble court may
deem fit and proper in the present fact and
circumstances of the case.

(d) Award cost of the petition."

13. However, during the pendency of
the present writ petition, the writ petitioner
No. 1, Ramesh Chandra Bari expired, a
substitution application came to be filed
which was allowed and the legal heirs of
the deceased were put on record. An
amendment application also came to be
filed by the writ petitioners seeking
amendments in the facts, grounds and the
prayer which also came to be allowed. The
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amendment sought in the relief clause is
being quoted hereinunder.-

"(e) Order direction to summon
the original records of Screening Test
Result of total 359 Candidates-Applicants,
which has been produced by Sri Jata
Shanker
Tripathi,
the
then
Personal
Inspector (S & W1-II/Policy) [Staff Welfare
Inspector],
before
Hon'ble
Court
of
Hon'ble Ms. Jasmine Ahmed (Member (J)],
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at
Allahabad, on dated 25.07.2013, [In
Execution Application No. 12 of 2011, filed
by the applicants-Petitioners in O.A. No.
1568 of 2009, with O.A. No. 1233 of 2009],
in
view
of
learned
Tribunals
direction/order
dated
10.07.2013,
in
Execution Case No. 12 of 2011, as
mentioned above."

(f) Direct the respondents, to pay
compensation
to
poor
applicantspetitioners, for their redressal and support
for minising their financial stringencies,
mercifully, in the light several judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court, to meet the ends of
justice."

14. The matter was heard at length on
several dates and on 13.08.2024, the
respondents were required to prepare a
tabular chart disclosing the reasons for
unsuitability of the writ petitioners as
indicated in the schedule appended to the
writ petition. Pursuant to the directions of
the Writ Court, the respondents have filed a
tabular chart.

15. A joint statement has been made
by the counsel appearing for the rival
parties that the pleadings are complete and
they do not propose to file any further
affidavits and the writ petition be decided
on the basis of the documents available on
record.