ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER NORTHERN RLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this O.A. under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants, who are 12 in number, have prayed to quash the order dated 30.11.2000 (Annexure-2) by which the claim of the applicants for empanelment in the panel dated 3.2.1990 has been rejected.

(2.) The facts, in short, giving rise to this application, are that applicants were engaged as Casual Labourers in the Office of Chief Controller, Northern Railway, Allahabad on different dates before 1.5.1988. They had already completed 120 days and were eligible for absorption on regular basis for which purpose proceedings were initiated by publishing the lists of eligible Casual Labourers on 23.12.1988, 13.2.1989 and 25.7.1989. In the aforesaid three lists, names of all those Casual Labourers, who had completed 120 days prior to 1.5.1988, were included. The names of applicants were mentioned in the list dated 23.12.1988, screening test took place between August, 1989 to October, 1989 then apanel of 394 persons, who were selected, was published on 3.2.1990. The names of the applicants were not included in this panel. Aggrieved by which they filed O.A. No. 30 of 1994 in this Tribunal, which was finally decided on 5.9.2000. This Tribunal noticed the contents of Para-10 of the Counter filed by the respondents, wherein it was stated that they had considered only those Casual Labourers who had rendered 235 days of working as on 1.5.1988 in drawing the panel of 3.2.1990.

(3.) IN pursuance of the aforesaid order, the respondents considered the claim of the applicants again and passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2000. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in paragraph 4 (iii) and paragraph 4(iv) of the O.A., applicants have clearly mentioned the names of those persons who were included in the panel, though the working days were less than the applicants, the facts stated in the above paragraphs have not been denied in paragraph 23 of the Counter reply. The fact accepted by the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 5.9.2000 was the stand of the respondents that only those who had rendered 235 days of working as on 1.5.1998, were included in the panel. The respondents were, thus, required to examine this fact and record findings in the order dated 30.11.2000. But this fact has not been examined and it has been concluded that no persons with less working days than applicants in T and C Department have been placed on the panel.