- (1.) The respondent's husband was a Khalasi appointed on casual basis along with others. The Railway decided to regularize the existing employees and thus, prepared a panel in 1972. However, due to non-availability of vacancy, the concerned employee could not be absorbed in regular sanctioned post contemporaneously. The gentleman died in the year 1982. In 1996, the Railway regularized the existing employees working at that time, however, gave them the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect from the date of empanelment, being January 1972. Being aggrieved by such action on the part of the Railway, the respondent being the widow of the deceased employee approached the Tribunal. On scrutiny of the records it appeared that the concerned employee was screened by the Screening Committee and was empanelled on January 13, 1972. The Tribunal asked the Railway to treat him at par with his junior, who got the benefit of regularization subsequently, however, with retrospective effect. The Tribunal while allowing the application also rejected the plea of limitation taken by the Railway.
(2.) Being aggrieved, the Railway has come up before us by filing the instant application.
(3.) We have heard Mr. Saptarshi Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Railway and Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.;