K SATHYA vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 8 October 2026

O R D E R

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “i) to call for the records pertaining to the Proceedings No. SCR/P- GTL/CON/228/Casual Labour dt. 20.3.2023 wherein rejecting the claim of some of the applicants non considering in respect of other applicants for absorption into the Group D of the respondents pursuant to the policy laid down by the Railways and orders in WP NO. 6597(W) OF 2008 dt. 8.5.2009 and WP No. 25199(W) of 2010 dt. 12.7.2011 and declare the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same;

ii) Consequently, direct the respondents to the cases of the applicants for absorption in Group C posts and regularize the services with all consequential benefits, and

iii) to pass such orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts of the case, in brief, as submitted by the applicants, are as follows: i. The Applicants were engaged by a Contractor namely, Mahanthi Srinivas Khadi & Village Industries Association, Guntakal, (hereinafter called as the Contractor) for handling Coal and Ash contract, for about 10 years, from 1982 to 1992. Respondents herein had awarded the contract to the Contractor for handling Coal and Ash at the Guntakal Station for steam engines, vide Agreement No. 4/92, dt.27.04.1992, and similar contract agreements were also entered into prior to the above contract agreement. The Applicants were engaged for the said purpose by their contractor continuously. On abolition of the steam engines, Respondents did not extend the contract after 1993, because of which, the applicants were not re-engaged and became “un-employees” since then.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

ii. Applicants further submit that the some of the employees, who were similarly situated as the applicants, had approached this Tribunal by filing OA Nos.1854/1999 and 1212/1999, seeking a direction to include their names in the live register of the Respondents and to re- engage them, as and when causal labourers are required by the Railways. By order, dt.27.04.2000, OA No.1854/1999 was allowed and OA No.1212/1999 was dismissed, by order, dt.26.11.1999. Against the said orders, both the parties filed WP No.1804/2001 and 1226/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of AP and both the WPs were disposed of by the common order, dt.31.08.2004, holding that no direct relationship was established between the applicants therein and the Railways and the writ against the direction given by the Tribunal was allowed. While disposing of the WP, the Hon'ble High Court observed that- 'This judgment, however, do not preclude the railway administration in the Guntakal Division to consider the case of the applicants for engagement, in case a policy is framed for engaging Ex-contract labour and the case of the applicants may be considered by the railway administration, if and when such a Scheme is framed and the cases of Ex- contract labour require to be considered for re-engagement under such a scheme.”

Applicants have argued that, it is clear that, if a policy is laid down for re-engaging the ex-labourers, the cases of the ex-contract labourers have to be considered by the railways. iii. It is further submitted that similarly situated persons exist all over India. An identical matter had come up before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in WP No. 6597(W) of 2008, wherein the High Court, after considering all the aspects and the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

Apex Court, after the policy was laid down by the Railway Board, by order, dt.08.05.2009, passed an order directing the respondents to consider the cases of the contract labourers in accordance with their own policy decision framed by their policy making body, in the shape of guidelines, which were produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Following the above decision, the same High Court allowed WP No.25199(W) of 2010, on 12.07.2011, at the admission stage. The applicants reliably learnt that the respondents have implemented the said orders. According to the applicants, the policy making body has laid down a policy to absorb erstwhile contract labourers for handling coal and ash work and it is incumbent on the part of the Respondents herein to consider their cases, not only in accordance with the Railway Board policy but also as per the observations made by the High Court. iv. It is further argued that the Contractor had filed a case before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, for reconciliation and the matter was considered by the Commissioner, after giving notice and arranging various meetings between the parties. In the said proceedings, Respondents specifically contended that, since no such scheme is framed by the Railway Board to engage the ex-contract labourers, they could not re-engage the ex-contract labourers. Accordingly, the reconciliation was closed by order, dt.28.11.2008. After coming to know about the law laid down by the Calcutta High Court, the Contractor and the applicants made representations to the respondents on 16.09.2012, 24.06.2013,

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

08.11.2013, 06.01.2014 and 09.01.2014. Respondents have not followed the policy laid down by the Railway Board and the orders passed in similar case by the High Court of Calcutta. They have also ignored the Contract Labour Abolition Act, even though the applicants were engaged for the work of the Respondents. v. The Applicants also contend that inaction on the part of the respondents in not disposing of the above representations was challenged by some of the applicants in OA No.284/2014, and the Tribunal, by its order, dt.23.04.2014, disposed of the OA, directing the Respondents to dispose of individual representations of the applicants therein within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. On receipt of the said order, the applicants made representation, on 06.05.2014, bringing to notice all the facts and the orders of the Calcutta High Court. The said representation was rejected by a common order, in individual cases on 05.08.2014, vide proceedings having one and the same number. The other applicants did not file any representation as no useful purpose would be served. The order, rejecting the representation, is not in accordance with law and is contrary to the policy adopted by the Railway Board. Though the order of the Calcutta High Court specifically mentioned that the Policy of the Railway Board was communicated to all General Managers, Respondent No.3 has stated that no such policy was communicated. Proving the fact of continuous working rests with the applicants and the records to prove the case have already been submitted to the respondents. It is argued that the order of the High

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

Court clearly indicates that the petitioners therein are similarly situated as the applicants. vi. It is also submitted that applicants 1 to 3, along with other employees, filed OA No.1218/2015, challenging the rejection order passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which was allowed by the Tribunal, by order, dt.31.03.2022, wherein the respondents were directed to re- consider the matter for absorption, as per the orders of the High Court of Calcutta and pass a reasoned order within 4 months. Respondents have erroneously rejected the case of the applicants that the applicants have not filed any evidence to prove that they were engaged. Applicants have already submitted the certificates issued by the concerned officer to prove that they were engaged along with the passes issued at the relevant point of time to them by the Respondents. Hence, the plea of the Respondents is unsustainable in law. Further, as per the decision, dt.05.12.2019, of the CAT, Kolkata Bench, in OA No. 1350/2016, Respondents were directed to reconsider cases on the basis of Identity Card/Passes issued by the Contractor and countersigned by the Railway Supervisor. In the instant cases, the applicants have submitted the passes issued by the Contractor and countersigned by the Railway official as well as the certificate issued by the Contractor. Without verifying the same, on an erroneous ground that the certificate was issued by the Contractor, recently, the rejection order was passed. It is argued that the Contractor has issued the certificate, recently, since the earlier certificate was misplaced by the applicants, but the content of the certificate clearly establishes that

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

the applicants had worked during the said period. It is the duty of the Respondents to consider the cases of the applicants based on the contents of the certificate issued by the Contractor, rather than passing the order of rejection on flimsy ground, as the same is unsustainable in law. Hence this OA.

3. Grounds advanced by the applicant are as follows: i. While submitting that the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of some of the applicants for absorption is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, it is contended that the Respondents ought to have seen that the Railway Board policy, laid down, pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court, which was implemented in the case of the labourers in Kolkata, ought to have been extended to the applicants without any discrimination. ii. Respondents ought to have seen that the other applicants, including those who have not made representation, had worked with the contractor and rendered their services to the Railways and were paid by the Contractor, out of the amount paid by the Railway only, and the applicants have spent their entire life doing the work of the Railways. iii. Respondents ought to have seen that the contents of the certificate, issued by the Contractor, were as per their records and their cases ought to have been considered instead of rejecting them on the ground that the certificate was issued by the contractor recently.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

4. On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: i. The cause of action arose in the year of 1993, but the applicants have filed this OA after a lapse of 33 years. Hence, the OA is not maintainable as per the law or facts and is liable to be dismissed. ii. It is submitted that Sri K.Sathya and 07 other applicants have stated that they were engaged by the Contractor for handling Coal and Ash contract for steam engines, on contract basis, for about 10 years, from 1982-1992. The contract was not extended after phasing out of steam locos. All the applicants were contract labourers whose contract was not extended after 1993. iii. As the administration had entered into a contract agreement with the contractor firm and the labour was engaged by the contractor, it was the contractor who had to maintain the details of the labour engaged, as per Rule 76 of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act. In case of any dispute between the contract labour and the contractor, the Principal Employer will deduct the amount from the bills of the contractor. No direct payment of wages was to be made to the labour by the Principal Employer. iv. The Writ Petitions referred to by the Applicants, were disposed of giving liberty to the Railway Administration to consider the case of the applicants for re-engagement, in case a policy is framed for engaging Ex-Contract Labour. Thus, the case of the applicants could be considered by the Respondents, if and when such a scheme is framed. However, till date, the Railway Board has not framed any

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

policy in this regard. Hence, the question of re-engaging the applicants does not arise. v. It is contended that the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, in its order, dt.08.05.2009, while quashing the orders, dt.20.07.2005, of the Eastern Railway, had given liberty to the railway administration to take a decision in the matter of appointment of contract labourers in Group-D service, but did not decide the eligibility of the contract labourers for appointment to railway service. In view of the non- issuance of the policy by the Railway Board, on appointment of the Ex-Contract Labourers for absorption in Group-D services, it is not incumbent on their part to consider the cases of the applicants who were erstwhile contract labourers, engaged by the contractor, M/s Mahanti Srinivasa Khadi & Village Industries. vi. It is further submitted that the Railway Board, by their order, dt.25.07.2007, informed the General Manager, Eastern Railway, and other General Managers that, upon fulfilment of the conditions laid down by the Railway Board, under their memoranda, dt. June 14, 2005, and November 8, 2005, and on production of the documents mentioned therein, the cases of coal and ash handling contract labourers would be considered for absorption into Railway Services. vii. The conciliation proceedings before the RLC(C)/HYB were closed by order, dt.28.11.2008, in view of non-existence of the scheme of engagement of ex-contract labourers by the Railway Board and the applicants in the above proceedings were not engaged.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

viii. The applicants made representations, dt.16.09.2012, 24.06.2013, 08.11.2013, 06.01.2014 and 09.01.2014, to the Railway Administration, consequent upon disposal of the case by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. As the above representations were not disposed of, they filed OA.No.284/2014 which was disposed of, by order, dt.24.03.2014, directing to make fresh individual representations to the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration was directed to dispose of the same in a time bound manner. ix. It is submitted that, previously, 60 applicants had filed OA.1218/2015 before this Tribunal stating that they had been engaged for handling Coal and Ash under the Contractor, Sri M.Chandra Sekhar. Respondents nominated 04 Chief Staff and Welfare Inspectors to verify the certificates produced by the applicants. Hence, the Ch.S&WI of this office contacted Sri M.Chandra Sekhar (Contractor), who revealed that he is not having any base documents in support of the Casual Labour Certificates issued to the coolies, and further stated that, while issuing these certificates to the applicants in January, 2023, he had not gone through particular documents of the candidates and had blindly signed them. The contractor further stated that the applicants have not worked as Coal & Ash Handling Contract Labour since 1982-1992 and he had not engaged any of the applicants for the said years. The contractor also admitted that the above certificates, issued to the applicants are FALSE and are without any base documents and the service particulars/certificates mentioned by

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

him in respect of the applicants are also NOT GENUINE. Hence, the representations of the applicants were considered and rejected, in compliance with the orders of this Tribunal. x. In the meanwhile, to verify the claims, administration had formed a 03 Man Screening Committee to scrutinize the documents submitted by the applicants. Accordingly, the screening was held on 01.02.2023 & 02.02.2023, for the 60 applicants, among whom, Sri K. Sathya, Sri G. Prasad, & Sri I. Irudaya Nathan have again filed this OA. They attended the screening on the said dates and stated that they had worked as Labour only for the period between 1982 and 1992 and they did not have any related documents. Further, the documents which they produced during the screening, had been arranged recently and were signed without any date under the name of Sri M.Chandra Sekhar (Contractor) and are fake and were submitted for getting employment in Railways. xi. It is also submitted that, in terms of the Apex Court's judgment reported in Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and All India Railway Parcel and Goods Porters Union vs. Union of India, the burden of proving the claim of continuous working rests upon the claimants for which they are required to furnish concrete proof and reliable documents. xii. Respondents have prayed to dismiss the OA.

5. Heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

6. The OA has been filed challenging the proceedings No.SCR/P- GTL/CON/228/Casual Labour, dt.20.03.2023, issued by the O/o DRM/GTL/R2, in compliance with the order, dt.31.03.2022, passed by this Tribunal, in OA.No.1218/2015. We have perused the order in the said OA wherein the following direction has been issued: “7. After going through the case and after hearing the rival contentions, it is observed that the issue no more resintegra as the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Writ Petition No.6597(W) of 2008 vide judgement dated 8.5.2009 had directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of contract labourers in accordance with their own policy decision framed by their policy making body in the shape of guidelines which were produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court-in two similar cases. They were further directed to pass a reasoned order. The applicants being similarly situated to that of the petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, we hereby direct the respondents to re-consider the cases of the applicants for absorption in Group 'D' posts in terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta (supra) and pass a reasoned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above direction, the O.A. is allowed.”

7. It is noted that the guidelines which were produced before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two similar cases, were to be followed for considering the cases of contract labourers who are similarly situated as the applicants before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in WP.No.6597(W) of 2008 (North Calcutta Co-Operative Labour Contract & Construction Society Ltd. & Others vs. Union of India & Others). The judgment in WP.No.6597(W)/2008 supra, pronounced by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, on 08.05.2009, reads as follows: “On a perusal of the judgment dated September 10, 1998 passed in W.P. No.14693(W) of 1998, I find that petitioner no.1 therein was directed to submit a list of candidates who claimed to be eligible for absorption in keeping with the guidelines which had been produced in two previous cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There was further direction upon the Railway authorities to take steps to scrutinise the above list for the purpose of ascertaining the eligibility of the persons concerned for absorption in the vacancies under the Railways. I also find that the above judgment reached its finality due to dismissal of the above(civil) No.CC 4120 of 2001 on August 24,

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

2001 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the respondent authorities were under obligation to consider the cases of the contract labourers in accordance with their own guidelines which were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Needless to mention that the guideline of the Railway Board issued under memo no.E(LL) 2004/80/CNR/15(Pt) dated June 14, 2005 was not in existence at the time of delivery the Judgment dated September 10, 1998 in W.P. no.14693(W) 1998. Therefore, the respondent authorities did not consider the cases of the contract labourers under reference in accordance with the guidelines which were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and took into account irrelevant considerations to reject the claim of the contract labourers under reference by passing the impugned order dated July 20, 2005.

As a result, the decision making process of the respondent authorities in rejecting the claim of the contract labourers under reference by passing the impugned order dated July 20, 2005 cannot be sustained in law on the basis of settled principles of law as decided in the matter of Style (Dress Land) Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh& Anr., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 89 the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below:- "11. Even the administrative orders and not quasi judicial are required to be made in a manner consonance with the rules of natural justice, when they affect the rights of the citizens to the property or the attributes of the property. While exercising the powers of judicial review the court can look into the reasons given by the Government in support of its action but cannot substitute its own reasons. The Court can strike down an executive order, if it finds the reasons assigned were irrelevant and extraneous. The Courts are more concerned with the decision making process than the decision itself."

I do not find that the ratio laid down in the matter of Uma Devi(3)(supra) helps the respondents in any way. The principles of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision is not applicable in the instant case because the case of temporary/ad-hoc employees for their permanent absorption was under consideration in the above case. But in this case, the appointment of the contract labourers in Group-D posts in Railway Services was required to be considered on the basis of the own policy decision of the Railway Authority and in terms of their own guidelines. And the decision making process of the respondent authority in considering the cases of those contract labourers on the basis of such policy decision is the subject matter of judicial review in this case. All that the executive officers of respondent authorities were required to do in accordance with law was to examine the claims of the members of the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 in accordance with the policy decision which was framed by the policy making body of the respondent authorities.

In the circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent no.4 as communicated under memo No.E 308/CC/WP/RAR/2000 dated July 20, 2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondent authority is directed to consider the cases of the contract labourers in accordance with their own policy decision framed by their policy making body in the shape of guidelines which were produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

in two similar cases. The respondents are further directed to pass a reasoned order in the matter within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

It is, however made clear that the eligibility of the contract labourers under the aforesaid guidelines framed as a policy decision of the respondent authority has not been decided in this case and the respondent authority will be free to take a decision in this regard. This writ application is thus disposed of.”

8. It remains to be seen whether the above directions of this Tribunal as well as the High Court have been followed scrupulously while considering the case of the applicants leading to the issue of the impugned proceedings. A three Member Committee went through each case and have given their findings. The following paras of the impugned proceedings are relevant: “3. Railway Board (Ministry of Railways) have issued instructions with regard to absorption/regularisation of the Coal and Ash handling contract labour in the following letters:

a) Rly Board's letter No.2004/E(LL)/AT/CNR/15(Pt). Dt. 08.09.2022

b) Rly Board's letter No.E(LL)2004 AT/CNR/15. Dated 25.07.2007.

c) Member Staff, Rly Bd. D.O. Lr.No.E(LL)2004 AT/CNR/15. Dated 25.07.2007

d) Rly Board's letter No.E(LL)2004/AT/CNR/15(Pt.) Dt.8-11/2005

4. As per Railway Board's letters cited above, the following are the certain yardsticks in terms of which the Coal & Ash Handling Contract Labourers could be considered for absorption.

a) There are need for recruitment e.g. men/labour in the Railway preferably in the job in which he was working.

b) The genuineness and authenticity of each and every claimant for regularization, is to be established.

c) The Contract Labour is medically fit as per recruitment rules.

d) Contract Labour has the educational qualification of 'read and write (only in case Coal & Ash Handling Contract Workers.

e) The Contract Labour is within the age limit as per recruitment rules after giving the benefit of number of days he has served the Railway as a contract labour:

f) The Contract Labour should have been working continuously for 10 years for being considered for absorption and that the burden

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

of providing the claim of continuous working rest on the claimants i.e. Contract Labourers.

x x x x

6. The committee has conducted screening on 01.02.2023 and 02.02.2023 at MDDTI/GTL duly calling all the 60 applicants who have filed OA No. 1218/2015, by sending letters to all the applicants through registered posts. Out of total 60 applicants called; 50 applicants have reported at venue on 01.02.2023. Out of 50 who have reported, 06 applicants have not attended screening before the screening committee and left from venue without given any information. Only 44 applicants have attended screening before the committee.

7. Findings of the screening committee:

ⅰ) Total 60 applicants who have filed OA No.1218/2015 were called for screening before the screening committee conducted on 01.02.2023 & 02.02 2023, out of which, 44 applicants have attended screening before the screening committee and submitted some documents/declarations, on verification of these documents, it is found that most of applicants have submitted similar type of employment card and muster roll duly mentioning service period as 1982 to 1992 and tenure of employment as 10 years and wage slip issued by Mahanthi Srinivasa Khadi & Village Industries Association, Guntakal to the applicants which are prepared recently without date and signed under the name of Shri M. Chandrasekhar, Contractor. During the course of screening, the applicants have informed that they have obtained these documents from Mahanthi Srinivasa Khadi & Village Industries Association, Guntakal during January 2023 for attending screening.

x x x x

viii) The nominated Staff & Welfare Inspectors have submitted their report, stating that they have contacted Sri M.Chandra Sekhar, Contractor, M/s Mahanthis Srinivas Khadi & Village Industries association, Door No.6/600. Benchikottal, Guntakal-515801 and the following information is submitted.

a) We have contacted the above-named contractor on 16.02.2023 regarding the above issue and a letter was served at reference above and acknowledgement has been obtained from M. Chandra Sekhar. In connection with the verification of documents submitted by the applicants in O.A.No.1218/2015 in which some clarifications were required.

b) During the inquiry. Sri.M.Chandra Sekhar has revealed orally that he is not having any base documents in support of issuing this casual Labor Certificates for the applicants.

c) While issuing these certificates to the applicants during Jan-2023, he stated that he has not gone through with the particular documents of the candidates and blindly signed on them. The candidates for the similar period of engagement and term of service and wages have been mentioned in the certificates issued by him are inappropriate.

d) Further, he stated orally that, the candidates have not worked in Coal & Ash Handling contract labor since 1982 to 1992 and he has not engaged any of the applicants by him. During the above-

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

mentioned period, no employment was done for the said years by the said contractor.

e) He also revealed that as the M/s Mahanthi Srinivasa Khadi & Village Industries Association, Guntakal, was ended the contract long back and the exact date of end is not known to him and he has not obtained any renewal of agreement from the concerned authorities for enduring of the association. Further, he conveyed that there are no records available presently with him pertaining to engagement of the Casual labour for that time.

f) Further in inquiry, he has admitted that the above certificates issued by him to the applicants are FALSE without any base documents and service particulars/certificates mentioned by him to these applicants are also no Genuine

g) During the inquiry, Sri.M.Chandra Sekhar has committed and stated orally in front of his family members of the above information, in which Kum.M.Sirisha Devi daughter of M.Chandra Sekhar who is one of the applicant in this case also stated that they will submit their written statement in this regard by evening of 16.02.2023. But, no one have attended to this office. Hence, we have again approached to get the written statement from the said contractor. Finally, himself and his family members have absconded from the house without submitting written statement. In view of the above circumstance, it clearly indicates that the certificates/documents duly signed by Sri.M.Chandrasekhar during January-2023 are all false and fake.

8. Recommendations of the screening committee:

As none of the applicants is meeting the eligibility criteria as per the yardsticks laid down by Railway Board, the screening committee found none of the applicant suitable for considering their candidature as Coal & Ash handling contract labour for absorption in Group 'D' posts. Hence, screening committee not recommended any applicant for absorption.”

9. While dealing with the issues of engaging the contract labourers, in several judgments of the Tribunals/High Courts/ Supreme Court, the underlying direction has been that the contract labour was to be engaged as per the policy framed by the Railways. Full freedom was given to the department to examine and decide the eligibility of the candidates concerned. In Chiranjit Pal & Ors vs. Union of India and Others, in WP.No.25199 (W)/2010, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has passed the following order, on 12.07.2011: “In the opinion of this Court, this case, being similar in nature, is squarely covered by the Judgment/Order delivered on 8.5.2009 in W.P. No. 6597 (W) of 2008 (North Calcutta Co-operative Labour Contract &

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

Construction Society Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping this Writ Petition pending before this Court. It is accordingly, disposed of by directing that the Respondent Authorities shall now consider the case of the Petitioners in accordance with their own Policy Decisions framed by their own policy making Body (referred to in the Order dated 8.5.2009) as well as in accordance with the Circular dated 25.4.2005 (Annexure P-4). The Respondents are directed to pass a reasoned Order in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

3. It is however, made clear that the eligibility of the Petitioners under the aforesaid Guidelines/Circular has not been decided in this case and the Respondent Authorities shall be free to take a decision in this regard but, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.”

(emphasis supplied)

10. We find that the entire matter has undergone repeated and detailed scrutiny in different legal forums and the exercise undertaken and completed by the Respondents is entirely in consonance with the directions issued therein. There is no evidence of arbitrariness or perversity in the findings. Copy of the impugned proceedings has already been marked to all the applicants in OA.No.1218/2015. As given in the findings of the Screening Committee, copies of documents furnished by the applicants for screening of their claims and annexed as Ann.A12 to the OA, are found to be without the name of the contractor as well as without any date of issue. Several other columns are left blank. Thus, the documents submitted by the applicants validate the findings communicated through the impugned proceedings and do not come to the rescue of the applicants.

11. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the case. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Manish Garg) Administrative Member

Judicial Member 08.10.2026

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA