- (1.) Heard Sri B.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri A.K. Roy, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have been engaged as Volunteer Ticket Collectors during Ardh Kumbh Mela at Allahabad for the period 12.1.1982 to 28.1.1982. In respect of their engagement, the certificate has been filed, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In this way, they had worked for 17 days only. The petitioners alongwith other persons filed Original Application No. 873 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal for the claim of their re-engagement and regularization under the Railway Board's letter dated 6.2.1990, but the same has been rejected vide order dated 19.12.1994. The petitioners alongwith others have filed appeal before the Apex Court, which was titled as 'Shiv Shankar and others v. Union of India and others'. The contention of the petitioners is that they were the parties in the said appeal before the Apex Court. The appeal was disposed of by the Apex Court on 19.2.1996 by the following order: Special leave granted. Learned counsel state that the matters are covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14756-67/93 and connected matters decided on 27.7.1995. The order of the Tribunal under appeal is, accordingly, set aside. The appeals are disposed of with the directions given in the case of Usha Kumari Anand; the respondents are directed to examine the case of the appellant in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 37 and 38 of the tribunal's judgment in the matter. This should be done within six weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.
(2.) In pursuance of the order of the Apex Court, the claim of the petitioners have been considered by the respondents and has been rejected vide orders dated 10.4.1996. The order in case of all the petitioners are same. One of the order in case of Ran Vijay Singh is reproduced herein below: Ran Vijay Singh, S/o. Sh. B.R. Singh Village and Post-Rampart Dhamava, Distt. Allahabad Sub: Implementation of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 9606-9608, 16443-51, 17005-17017, 17148-17164, 17224-17230, 18608 of 96 in re. Shiv Shankar and others v. Union of India and others. In compliance of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case, your case has been examined thoroughly in light of the judgments given in the case of Volunteer/Mobile Booking Clerks particularly (Miss) Usha Kumari Anand and others v. Union of India,1989 2 CAT 37, etc. and it has been found that you have never worked under the scheme of Volunteer/Mobile Booking Clerks which was introduced in August, 1973 and it was discontinued on 14.8.1981 but extended upto 17.11.1986 with some conditions. Hence benefits under the above said judgment are not possible to be given to you. It is further informed that your alleged working days as well as working certificates are fake and also your certificate of working days has not been issued on the prescribed printed Casual Labour Service Card (duly machine numbered) by the competent authority as per extant rules. It is also relevant to mention here that the persons who were engaged as other than Mobile Booking Clerks, such as during Ardh Kumbh Mela etc. for short period etc. are into M.B.Cs. and as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the SLP No. CC-2442 dated 7.4.1994 in re. Union of India and others v. Lalji Shukla and others, matter was considered by the Rly. and it was decided not to frame any scheme to re-engage and regularize such persons viz. Volunteers Ticket collectors etc. against statutory provisions which also hit the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Sd. Illegible (Divl. Rly. Manager (Comml.) Northern Railway, Allahabad. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioners and attained finality. It is the case of the petitioners that similarly situated persons have filed Original Application No. 464 of 1997 and other connected original applications before the tribunal raising their grievances. The tribunal fide order dated 25.10.1999 has rejected their claim. The tribunal observed that the petitioners were engaged as Volunteer Ticket Collectors. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Usha Kumari Anand, was the case of Mobile Booking Clerks and not the case of Volunteer Ticket Collectors and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said case is not applicable. The tribunal further observed that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neera Mehta and Usha Kumari Anand, if they belonged to the category of volunteers to help ticket checking staff, they were not entitled to the benefit of the scheme of volunteer/mobile booking clerks but were to be re-engaged as volunteer and absorbed against group 'D' vacancies in their turn. They were thus to be treated as casual labour and granted the benefit of the provisions of IREM and extent instructions of the Railway Board regarding casual labour. The applicants should thus be re-engaged if they have completed the period of work prescribed for grant of temporary status without any back wages. Those who have not completed the period required for conferment of temporary status should continue to be engaged as casual labour in preference to fresh faces and granted temporary status as and when they complete the prescribed period which will include the days of work already put in by them as volunteers. The tribunal further observed in paragraph 16 as follows: 16. The applicants had worked for a few days during Ardh Kumbh Mela in 1982 as volunteers to assist ticket checking staff. They appear to have staked a claim after issuance of instructions of Railway Board dated 6.2.90 regarding volunteer/mobile booking clerks. They are thus not covered by instructions of Railway Board dated 6.2.90 because they were engaged as volunteers to assist ticket checking staff only for a period of seventeen days. The claim is also barred by limitation as it was staked after a period of eight years. Their names may, however, be entered in the Live Register for casual labour after verification of their service so that they may be engaged if casual labours are required in preference to fresh faces and be considered for regularization in Group 'D' as and when their turn comes.
(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 2005, they have approached through the Union to the authority. The authority examined the case and passed the order dated 12.3.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The reasons for the rejection of the claim of the petitioners given in the order are as follows: The Supreme Court judgment given in the above writ petition/SLP pronounced on 19.2.1996. The claimant are not Mobile Booking Clerks. For exploring the possibility of framing a scheme the matter was referred to Railway Board. Railway Board vide their letter No. E(NG)/II/93CL/NR/9SLP/Pt. A dated 26.5.94 has advised that it will not be possible to devise a scheme for re-engagement of the voluntary Ticket Collectors who were engaged only for short period on payment of packet allowance basis. The case of voluntary Ticket Collectors who bears no analogy with the case of Mobile Booking Clerks for whom a special scheme was work on for their re-engagement.;