Sri Bhabananda Das vs N.F.RAILWAY on 22 September 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This application has been preferred to seek the following relief: “8.1 To set aside and quash the impugned order dated 20.7.2020 as the respondents while proceeding to issue the impugned communication ignored the express directives passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal and proceeded to dispose of the claim of the applicants basing on issues which has already been settled by this Hon’ble Tribunal. As such the impugned communication having been so issued is in clear violation of the provisions of the Rules holding the field, directives as passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal and without there being any application of mind. 8.2 To direct the Respondents to regularize the services of the applicants. 8 3 To direct the respondents to regularize the service of the applicants on the basis of the casual labour identity card which were already declared to be genuine by the respondents as well as the Hon’ble Tribunal.

SINGSIT

8.4 To direct the Respondents to appoint the applicants against Group D posts as has been done in case of similarly situated employees. AND OR 8.5 Any other relief/reliefs that the applicants may be entitled to.”

2. Brief of the case as submitted by learned counsel for the applicants are that, applicants were engaged by the respondents as casual mazdoors, more particularly under the respondent No.2, i.e. General Manager (Construction) in various stations under N.F Railway on various dates and performed their duties to the satisfaction of the authority. They were entrusted with the duties of Khalasi, similar to regular Group-D employees. While working as such, applicants represented before the authority to regularize their services. It may be stated in this connection that a list of casual labourers containing 80 (Eighty) names of Bongaigaon Sub-Division, including the names of the applicants was forwarded to the competent authority on 01.02.1987. However, all of a sudden, the respondents terminated the services and they were instructed not to attend office anymore. However, even after such

SINGSIT

discharge, the applicants continued to perform duties with some artificial breaks. That, the Railway Board launched special drives in 1987, 1992, 03.09.1996, 09.10.1998, and 10.06.2006 for regularisation of the Ex-Casual labourers borne on Live/Supplementary Register against regular vacancies and accordingly several ex-casual labourers were regularised. That, certain ex-casual labourers borne in the Live/Supplementary Register who were left out from the benefits approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. no. 79/1996 and upon the direction of this Tribunal, they were absorbed. But the instant applicants have been left out from regularisation for not going into litigation. Aggrieved, applicants alongwith other similarly situated persons approached this Tribunal vide O.A 040/00417/2018 (Haren Das and Ors vs Railways) and this Tribunal vide order dated 06.03.2020 directed the respondents once again to pass a detailed speaking order indicating clearly the entire process gone through by them in considering the applicants as directed by the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2016. Pursuant

SINGSIT

thereto the respondents passed impugned order dated 20.07.2020 rejecting the case of the applicants. Aggrieved with the speaking order, Haren Das and 122 others once again approached this Tribunal vide O.A 37/2022 challenging the speaking order dated 20.07.2020. The present applicants were not party, so they have approached this Tribunal vide this O.A challenging the same speaking order dated 20.07.2020.

3. According to applicants, despite their names available in Live Casual Labourers Registers of the Railways, they were not granted the benefits and they are also entitled to get the benefit of the judgement in O.A. No. 79/96 which has already been decided by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by Judgement and order dated 05.11.2008 in WP(C) No. 6157/2007 while upholding the order dated 14.06.2007 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 281/2005, the matter has attained finality and the issue is no more res integra.

3.1. That, there is clear direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 14.06.2007 in O.A. No. 281/2005 upheld by the

SINGSIT

Hon’ble Gauhati High Court read with order dated 19.07.2005 in O.A. No. 336, 337 & 338 of 2004 and also order dated 10.04.2014 in O.A. no. 287/2011 for consideration of the cases of the applicants ignoring the Identity cards and based on their own records, namely, Xerox copies of the casual labour live register by a responsible committee with senior officials, but they have not yet received fair consideration leading to their regularisation.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants in the O.A have agitated their issue for grant of regularisation through several rounds of litigation before this Tribunal. These proceedings ran parallelly to litigation by another set of similarly situated employees namely Sri Haren Das and Others against similar order of rejection dated 20.07.2020, applicants in O.A No. 37/2022 (Sri Haren Das and Others v. Union of India). This Tribunal by order dated 14.06.2024 was pleased to allow the said O.A No. 37/2022 and quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 20.7.2020 directing the respondents to regularize the service of the applicants on the basis of the report dated 16.03.2004

SINGSIT

and to appoint them against Group-D posts as has been done in case of similarly situated employees. The aforesaid decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal on similar issue in respect of similarly situated employees is binding. But the applicants have been pushed into litigation on several occasions through various O.As and their cases have been rejected on different grounds on every occasion, latest by impugned letter dated 20.07.2020 on the ground that they were not engaged prior to 01.01.1981 and they did not apply for registration of their names in live/supplementary casual labour register within the stipulated time and that the matter is more than 30-35 years old. Such grounds are extraneous to the Scheme of regularisation and violative of the direction/observation of this Tribunal as stated above.

4.1. That it has already been observed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court at para 15 of the judgement and order dated 05.11.2008 in WP(C) 6157 of 2007 that the names of the applicants are made available in Live/Supplementary Casual Labourers Registers as mentioned by the Railways in

SINGSIT

the additional affidavit filed by the applicants in O.A. No. 281 of 2005 which has attained finality.

4.2. Applicants cannot be denied due benefit due to delay and lapses on the part of the respondents. They being ex-casual labourers of the respondents and their names being available in the Live/Supplementary Register are entitled for the similar benefits and the respondents cannot discriminate between similarly situated persons. There is no scope for the respondents to raise the plea of non registration of the names of the applicants in the Live/Supplementary Casual Labourers Registers which is not tenable in law and facts. The impugned letter dated 20.07.2020 is arbitrary and illegal and violative of the aforesaid decisions of this Tribunal as stated above and as such liable to be set aside and quashed with direction for their regularisation.

5. Respondents have filed their reply wherein they have stated that, in the year 1998, Railway Board launched a special drive vide Board's L/NO. E(NG)IW98/CLU32, dated 09.10.1998 for regularization for all the Ex-Casual labourers

SINGSIT

borne on Live/ Supplementary Casual labour Register against regular Group D vacancies. As a result of the aforesaid special drive, all the Ex- Casual labourers borne on Live/Supplementary Casual labour Register were regularized and thereafter, no application for absorption/regularization of casual labour is pending with the Railway administration.

5.1. That, in the year 1987, Railway Board vide Letter No E (NGW78/CU2 dated 04.03.1987 provided an opportunity to all ex-casual labours engaged with the N.F. Railway for enlistment of their names in the supplementary/Live Casual Labour Register. For the aforesaid purpose all the Casual labourers were asked to submit their applications within 31.03.1987 so that their cases can be examined / scrutinized and considered by the administration for taking further necessary action. Accordingly, the casual labourers who worked for the N. F. Railway Administration, but could not for certain reasons be absorbed/re-engaged in the establishment earlier after observing all formalities of norms, rules and laws were considered on receipt of their

SINGSIT

applications following all the norms in the Live Casual Labour Register / Supplementary Casual Labour Register.

5.2. That, alleging non consideration of their regularization/absorption in the Gr. D vacancies of the Railways inspite of their name having been enlisted in the Live/Supplementary Casual Labour Register, some aggrieved persons filed O.A. No. 79/1996 before this Tribunal, Guwahati Bench wherein the applicants thereon claiming themselves to be the Ex-Casual Labourer of the Railways, sought for their regularisation in Gr. D posts of Railway as per the policy decision dated 04.03.1987. While disposing of the aforesaid O.A, No. 79/1996, the Tribunal vide order date 11.10.1999 directed the Railways authorities to consider the case of the applicants therein for absorption within the stipulated time period. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, a Screening test was held for the applicants of O A. No. 79/1996 and, on such screening, some of the applicants were found eligible for absorption/regularisation, their names having been borne in Live/Supplementary Casual labour Register and accordingly, all list of the

SINGSIT

Selected Ex-Casual Labourers for regularization was published on 21.04.2000.

5.3. That also, this Tribunal while disposing of the O.A. No, 417/2018 vide Judgement and Order dated 06.03.2020; directed the authorities to consider the applicants claim for regularization and to come up with a speaking order in this respect. That in compliance of the order dated 06.03.2020, the authorities once again examined the details of the applicants as per available records and found that the applicants were neither engaged nor discharged prior to 01.01.1981 and the applicants did not apply for registration of their names in Live/ Supplementary Casual Labour Register within stipulated time as per Railways Board's guidelines dated 04.03.1987. On examination of the available materials records and the Rules and Regulations regarding engagement of casual Labour prevalent at that time, the applicants claim for absorption in Railway found to be not maintainable and as such, by the Speaking Order dated- 20.07.2020 issued by the Dy. CPO/Con, the

SINGSIT

applicants/ claim for absorption/regularization in Gr. D posts in Railway has been rejected.

6. Sri S. K. Ghosh, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents further submits that the applicants are relying upon the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 37/2022 Haren Das & Ors Vs UOI & Ors (Railways), decided on 14.06.2024, the same has been assailed before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide WP (C)/6250/2024 and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 29.11.2024 had stayed the order of the Tribunal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The case of the applicants as per them are that similarly situated persons namely, Haren Das & Ors., had filed O.A No. 37/2022 before this Tribunal which was allowed and they are also entitled for the similar benefit. However, it has also been submitted that the Union of India assailed the said order before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and which is still pending.

SINGSIT

9. Since the said Writ Petition No. 6250/2024 is pending for final decision before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, we are of the view that, if the Writ Petition is dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court and the benefits are granted to similarly situated persons as prayed for, then the case of the present applicants would also be considered by granting same benefits after verifying their factual details whether their names were registered in the Live Register/ casual labour Registry maintained by the Respondents. In case, their names are not mentioned there in the Live Register, that would mean that they were not engaged by the respondent authorities and they were engaged by the railway contractual/outsourced and would not be entitled for the same benefits.

10. With the above observations and directions, the O. A is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Pending M.A, if any, also stands disposed of.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

SS

SINGSIT