S.B. Sinha, M.H.S. Ansari, J. - (1.) This application is directed against a judgment and order dated 6.9.99 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. 259 of 1996 and O.A. 917 of 1998, whereby and where under the learned Tribunal at the admission stage itself disposed of a writ application filed by the respondents herein directing - "We have carefully considered the matter. It is mentioned by the respondents in one of its reply that there are 50,000 casual labours to be regularised in the Railways. It appears that the Railway has been quite alive to the requirement of the quasi-administrative staff and regularisation of casual labours since 1977 and a number of employees have joined from December 1970 onwards. The Railways has shown its anxiety to appoint them against regular Group-D vacancies but somehow the matter has not progressed because of lack of enthusiasm at the level of the concerned divisional officers. The Railway is a very big organisation and it should set an example by treating its reputation as a model employer. There are certain employees who have already worked for 27 to 28 years under these Institutes and at this point of time they have nowhere to go. We feel that the Railways should show magnanimity and complete the process of screening as per rules of the quasi-administrative staff." The only contention which has been raised in this application is as to whether the said application filed by the respondents herein was maintainable.
(2.) Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that admittedly the respondents have been working in Sub has Institute, Asansol, which is an institute managed by the Managing Committee and this was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the respondents were not holders of civil posts. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed in All India Railway Institute Employee's Association v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 952: [1991(3) SLR 64 (SC)] .
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits that those employees who are working in railway institute and clubs are quasi railway employees and their status should be equated with the casual employees who had attained a semi permanent status. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to a circular letter dated 3.9.96, from a perusal whereof it appears that the same had been issued in respect of the casual labours on roll as on 30.4.96. Mr. Das, has further drawn our attention to a circular letter dated 29.3.85 issued by the Railway Board.;