A.P. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by Shri Ashoke Mahapatra and 49 others against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway and six others.
(2.) The applicants were all initially appointed as Casual Labourers under the permanent Way Inspector (Construction), S.E. Railway, Panskura Rail Link to Haldia Port. Most of them had completed eight years of continuous service before their retrenchment. For want of further service some of them were appointed as casual Labourers afterwards, under the permanent Way Inspector, Tamluk. Some of them challenged the legality of the retrenchment in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in 1978. That writ petition was disposed of on 14.2.80 on the assurance given by the side of the respondents to the effect that in case of engagement of any casual labourer in the construction wing under the control of Kharagpur Division preference should be given to the applicants of that case on the consideration of their length of service. On 14.4.1987 the District Engineer, Construction Kharagpur, S.E. Railway appointed some casual labourers who were much junior to the applicants in service. Such appointments were made in Tamluk -Digha construction project. In making those appointments the promise/assurance given by the respondents was not adhered to. The Applicants State that the Divisional Engineer in making those appointments had also violated the Railway Board's circular dated 4.9.1989. It is the contention of the applicants that when they had worked as casual labourers in earlier period than those appointed by the Divisional Engineer their cases should have been considered first -at the time of re -engagement. The applicants made representations to the Sr. Divisional Engineer, Kharagpur, but to no avail. The applicants state that the Chief Engineer (Construction) Garden Reach issued a notice to the Divisional Engineer, Construction Wing, Kharagpur to take necessary action for wide publicity of the circular issued on 2.3.1987. The said circular was published by the Divisional Engineer on 25.5.87. Such being the position and as they did not come to know of the contents of the circular prior to 1988 they could not make any applications in the prescribed form in time. On 8.12.1987 respondent No. 7 published a panel showing the names of casual labourers who would be absorbed in regular vacancies in Kharagpur Division. The applicants contend that although they had worked from much earlier and for a longed period than the persons empanelled their cases were not considered. In filing the application the applicants have prayed for a declaration that the list published by the respondent authorities is not in accordance with the law and that they are entitled to get temporary status as they had worked for more than the statutory period. They have also prayed for their re -engagement on the consideration of their length of service.
(3.) The application has been contested by the respondents. The respondents do not admit the length of service of the applicants as alleged in the application. It is their main contention that as the applicants had not submitted their applications giving the full particulars within the stipulated date of 91.3.1987 their cases were not considered.;