- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner, Padam Chand G., way back in the year 2002 challenging order dated 19.11.2001 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 251/2001 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to modify order dated 06.06.2001 and regularise services of the petitioner on the post of Khallasi in the Department of Carriage and Wagon instead of Engineering Department with all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Khallasi on 19.06.1978 under Head TXR, which post has now been re -designated as C.W.S.(G) Carriage and Wagon(Senior Section Engineer (General). Since then, he was discharging duties on the post of Khallasi. The petitioner submitted various representations to the respondents for regularisation of his services on the post of Khallasi. The petitioner was screened for the purpose of regularisation on 02.06.1984 and was found fit, but at that time, a criminal case under Section 3 of R.P.U.P. Act was pending against the petitioner and Prem Singh, another employee working on the same post as Khallasi on casual basis, therefore, his case could not be considered for regularisation. According to the petitioner, many of his juniors were regularised and posted on the respective posts. Criminal case under Section 3 of R.P.U.P. Act was decided by the Court concerned vide judgment dated 07.06.1999, whereby the petitioner and aforenamed Prem Singh were acquitted. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondents on 16.08.1999, requesting that since he has been acquitted, therefore, he may be given regular appointment on the post of Khallasi with seniority and all other consequential benefits on the basis of screening test held on 02.06.1984. Two more applications were also submitted by the petitioner in this behalf on 02.05.2000 and 24.07.2000. Senior D.P.O. of the respondent passed an order on 02.05.2000 on last of such application of the petitioner made on the same day stating that after enquiry, reply be sent to the petitioner, but no reply was sent to the petitioner. Finally vide letter dated 27.07.2000, the petitioner was informed by the respondents that major DAR case was pending against him, therefore, he could not be reqularised. The aforesaid DAR case eventually resulted in awarding of penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without future effect vide order dated 21.02.2001.
(3.) AT the time when original application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, his appeal filed against the said order was pending. The Tribunal vide impugned order dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner accepting contention of the respondent -Railways that on account of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner as also imposition of penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without future effect in DAR case, he could not be regularised on the basis of screening test held on 02.06.1984 and the Tribunal, subsequently upheld the action of the respondents, who contended before the Tribunal that after finalisation of both the cases, petitioner's services were regularised vide order dated 06.06.2001 on the post of Gangman in Engineering Department in the scale of 2610 -3540 and he was posted in P.W.1. At Mahidpur Road Station. The aforesaid post of Gangman carried higher scale to that of the post of Khallasi which is in the scale of 2550 -3200, for which he was screened for the purpose of regularisation. It was contended that at that time when the criminal case and DAR case was pending, there was no vacancy in the Carriage and Wagon Department, therefore, petitioner's services could not be regularised in that department and there is no impediment for regularisation of the petitioner against the post of Gangman under P.W.1. At Mahidpur Road in the Engineering Department where the vacancies were available. This Court on 04.12.2014 required the respondents to file counter after examining grievance of the petitioner in the light of aforesaid two developments namely acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case and exoneration of the petitioner in DAR case following the decision of the Tribunal, which has set aside order of penalty, particularly when the petitioner has qualified screening test held on 02.06.1984 for being regularised on the post of Khallasi in Carriage and Wagon Department. Today, when the matter was called out, Mr. Ganesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, counsel for the respondents has again prayed for adjournment. We declined the prayer for adjournment and proceed to decide the writ petition after hearing learned counsel for the parties.;