RAM LALIT AND vs NORTHERN EASTERN RAILWAY on 23 October 2026

O R D E R

PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Challenge in this Original Application (in short O.A.) is the order dated 07.05.2002 (Annexure No. 1 of the OA) whereby the claim of the applicants for regularization in the Respondent Department has been rejected.

3. This OA was instituted in the year 2003 which was dismissed on 26.05.2004 by this Tribunal. Writ No. 1768 (S/B) of 2004 preferred against the same also came to be dismissed on 12.04.2016.

4. Aggrieved party (applicants) preferred Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2026 in the following terms:- “2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice as also the parties, that the matter be remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for consideration of the appellants’ case afresh. More so, in view of the material placed on record vide application bearing I.A. No. 202554/2026.

3. We notice that the Tribunal had simply rejected the appellants’ application by referring to the response of the respondents, wherein it was stated that the appellants were gainfully engaged in an establishment not being run under the control and supervision of the Railways. Such finding had no basis. The High Court, in an appeal preferred by the appellants, has simply reiterated the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal.

4. In this view of the matter, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 12.04.2016 in Special Bench No. 1768/2004 passed by the High Court, and judgment and order dated 26.05.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

5. We direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 14th August, 2026. The appellants undertake to place on record all materials including the document placed vide I.A. No. 202554/2026 before the Tribunal within four weeks thereafter. Liberty is granted to the parties to place on record all additional material within eight weeks thereafter.

6. We request the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh within three months.”

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme court, parties appeared before us.

6. Tersely put, the case of the applicants is that applicants are continuously working in the Mess as casual labour at Diesel Training Centre, North Eastern Railways, Gonda. The competent authority of the respondent department issued identity card as well as testimonials to the applicants. Applicants were to be absorbed in the non-statutory canteen in the Railways in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 27.02.1990 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, there was no regularisation and impugned order dated 07.05.2002 was passed. Hence, this O.A.

7. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that applicants were neither employed nor engaged by the Railway administration. Mess is not being run under the control and supervision of the Railway. There is no explicit obligation of the Railway to run the mess. The Mess of the Hostel is being run as private arrangement and payments are made from collections of trainees from their daily allowances. It has been further pleaded that there is no statutory or contractual obligation towards the mess of the diesel training centre hostel, N.E. Railway, Gonda. No appointments were made by Railways. No subsidy was provided by the Railways for the purpose of running the mess, hence, applicants cannot be granted the appointment in the Railways.

8. Applicants by filing rejoinder affidavit reiterated the averments made in the Original application. It has been further stated that applicants are working since long back years in the mess run by the Railway management, hence, their services be regularised.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that identity card has been issued by the competent authority of the Railways. Applicants are continuously working in the Railways since the year 1990 onwards; hence, they are entitled for regularization.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that applicants have not been appointed by the Railways. The canteen where applicants are working is a non-statutory canteen. The applicants were being paid from collections made by trainees from their daily allowances.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shri Krishan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. dated 16.09.2014 [SLP (Civil) No. 25721 of 2014], and Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Singh Thakur & Ors. dated 14.07.2011 [ Civil Appeal No.(s) 200 of 2007]. Further contended that in both aforecited judgments, facts are similar and their claim for regularisation have been rejected by the competent authority and has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Apex Court.

12. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Singh Thakur & Ors., the respondents were employees of a co-operative society of Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. The Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court directed to formulate a scheme for regularisation of the employees of Co-operative Society of Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the direction to frame a scheme for appointment can only be given by the Executive. It has been further held that a direction regarding regularisation in service is a purely executive function and such a direction cannot validly be given by the judiciary. Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments passed by Central Administrative Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court. Curative and Review petition filed against the said judgment were also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

13. In Shri Krishan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that petitioners/ persons working in a Non-statutory non-recognised canteen of the Railway Establishment, would not be entitled to claim regularisation of their services. The relevant portion of the aforecited judgment is being quoted herein below:-

“17. On a perusal of the said letter dated 09.11.1976, we find that it does not reflect the grant of any such sanction. We cannot agree with the said assumption of the petitioners in the absence of a finding on that by the final fact finding authority. The petitioners have failed to place on record any documents before the Tribunal to support the fact that sanction was granted by the Railway Board, recognizing the Mess being run at the S&T Training Centre, as a non-statutory recognised canteen.

18. Therefore, in the instant case, since there is no material placed on record, regarding the grant of sanction by Railway before any forum to highlight that the said Mess was of the nature of non-statutory recognised canteen, such a sanction cannot be assumed.

19. Further, Shri Jagdev Singh Manhas, learned counsel for the petitioners, would further make a reference to the decisions of this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala, (2006) 7 SCC 416. The said cases would be referred for the purposes of elaborating upon the question of fraud played by one party on another party to the lis and on the Court as well. However, in our considered view, the said cases would be of no assistance to the petitioners as the question of whether there was any fraud is not before this Court in the present special leave petition(s).

20. In light of the discussion above, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, dated 09.05.2014 and 30.03.2012, whereby the learned Judges upheld the view of the Tribunal stating that the petitioners-herein were working in a Non-statutory non- recognised canteen of the Railway Establishment and therefore would not be entitled to claim regularisation of their services.

21. In view of the above, we dismiss the special leave petition(s) and confirm the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court.”

14. From the perusal of the aforecited judgment, it is evident that the persons working in a non-statutory non-recognised canteen of the Railway Establishment are not entitled to claim regularisation of their services.

15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that service benefits including regularisation cannot be extended to a person who has not been appointed either legally or illegally. Applicants have not been appointed by Railway authorities/ competent authorities. Hence, they have no case for regularisation in the Railway Department.

16. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shripal and anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC online SC 221, Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2025 SC 296 and Dharam Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2025 SC 3897.

17. We have gone through the aforecited judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. As Respondent Department has not issued any appointment order appointing the applicants in the department, hence, facts of the present case are entirely different and applicants cannot claim the benefits of the aforecited judgments.

18. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that applicants are not entitled for regularisation in the Respondent Railway Department. O.A. lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

19. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Associated MAs also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A)

Member (J)

JNS Jay Narayan Singh Digitally signed by Jay Narayan Singh Date: 2026.10.27 14:37:21 +05'30'