- (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: - - "Heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents. There is nothing in the O.A. through which the applicant can establish his claim. There are two applications dated 24.04.2005 and 3.7.2005. There is no proof that the letter dated 24.04.2005 has been delivered to the respondents, only the letter dated 3.7.2005 carry the seal of receiving dated 2.8.2005. I feel the applicant could not establish his case at all on the basis of his two applications. No direction can be given to the respondents for consideration of his engagement for any post such a belated stage. The judgment relied by the counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the fact of the case the applicant herein never granted Temporary status nor he has worked continuously with the department. Accordingly to him, he has worked in the year 1981, and few days in the year 1995 with the respondents, and he himself in his representations dated 24.04.2005 and 3.7.2005 has written that his juniors have been engaged by the respondents. Hence, according to his own statement he should have approached this Tribunal at that point of time, when his juniors who were engaged with him in the year 1981 have been reengaged by the respondents later on. Hence, at such belated stage, direction to engage him is not warranted as by this time he must have been over -aged and new terms and conditions already come into effect for engaging casual casual laborers. Accordingly, the O.A. lacks merit hence dismissed. No costs.";