BALWAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balwan Singh is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 15.7.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (in short "the Tribunal") by which the petitioner's claim for appointment in the department in question has been rejected by the Tribunal.

(2.) As per the record this much is reflected that the petitioner was engaged as temporary casual laborer on 24.10.1981 under Railway at Bhopal and he worked for 120 days. After completion of 120 days, he was send to Railway Hospital, Beena on 2.7.1982 for medical checkup for appointment to the post of MRCL. It is averred that his medical checkup was done by the Chief Medical Officer and the report had been transmitted to the department concerned. He was given the pay of MRCL on 3.1.1983. Thereafter, admittedly, he was not engaged in the department and he went back to his native village. After that in the year 1995 he worked for few days as waterman under the Station Master, Motijheel and thereafter he had never been engaged by the respondents.

(3.) In this background it has been sought to be contended before the Tribunal that much juniors to the petitioner were engaged by the department but the applicant had never been taken back for any work. Consequently, after seeing the advertisement published in the year 2001 by the Railway for special recruitment drive, the petitioner had also proceeded to move an application/representation on 23.09.2001 by registered post to DRM (P), Jhansi claiming that juniors to the petitioner had been screened and taken back in the job and he had been discriminated but nothing has been done on the said representation. Thereafter, on 24.4.2005 and 30.07.2005 he again moved representation to the respondent authorities but again nothing has been done. Thereafter, the petitioner had proceeded to file the Original Application No. 621 of 2006 under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Tribunal after considering the entire gamut of the controversy had proceeded to dismiss the aforesaid O.A. with following observations: - -