IMPORTANT POINT
It is not permissible under Railways Rules to appoint a person directly as Mate in Class III and so factual continuance of respondent as Mate for a considerable period does not entitle him to be regularised as Mate. Nor conferment of Temporary status as a Mate under Supreme Court s direction ipso facto entitles him to be regularised as a Mate instead as a Gangman. But Supreme Court still declined to interfere with the CAT s direction to absorb respondents as regular basis as Mates on equitable ground without being treated as a precedent.

ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals by the Union of India are directed against the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad directing the Railway Authorities to absorb the respondents on regular basis as Mates.

4. The respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad challenging the orders dated 18.2.93 and 11.6.93 passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Northern Railway regularising the respondents in the post of Gangman in the grade of Rs. 775 to Rs. 1025 in class IV. It was alleged by the respondents that they had been directly appointed as casual Mate class III post in Northern Railway and after continuously working for more than 120 days they acquired temporary status as Mates. It was also averred that before conferring temporary status on them they were required to pass the trade test and in pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar s case (Writ Petition Nos. 15863-15906 of 1984 disposed of on 2nd December 1987) they were conferred the temporary status as Mates and a seniority list had been drawn up. While they were so continuing, the two impugned orders emanated regularising them against the post of Gangman in class IV. Accodingly they prayed before the Tribunal that the Railway Authorities should be directed to regularise them against the post of Mates. The appellants- Railway Authorities took the stand before the Tribunal that the post of Mate is a promotional post and can be filled on regular basis only by considering the employees from lower grade of Gangman/Keyman/Senior Keyman. They did not dispute the fact that the respondents were granted temporary status against the post of Mates but contended that since the Gangman can only be promoted on regular basis to the post of Mate subject to his fitness and qualification the Authorities have regularised the respondents by the impugned order in the lowest post of Gangman. The Tribunal on consideration of the respective stand of the parties came to the conclusion that since the respondents have worked all these years as Mate right from the inception it would not be appropriate to regularise them against the lower post as Gangmen and accordingly directed that they be regularised against the post of Mate. It is this order of the Tribunal which is being assailed in these appeals.

5. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India and other Railway Authorities contended that the conferment of the temporary status on a casual employee does not ipso facto entitle him to be regularised to the said post and, therefore, merely because the respondents were given temporary status against the post of Mates the Tribunal erred in law in directing their regularisation as Mates. He further contended that under the Rules in Railways a person has to be appointed in the lowest post of Gangman and from the said post the next promotional post is Keyman and then Senior Keyman which are the posts in class IV and thereafter those of the Senior Keyman who are found suitable for promotion to the post of Mate after holding a trade test are promoted to the post of Mate in class III. This being the normal procedure of promotion it would be wholly inequitable and contrary to Rules to regularise the respondents as Mates. It was not disputed, however, that the respondents on account of dearth of people had been appointed as Mates and continued as such for all these years and also had been conferred with the temporary status against the post of Mate and a seniority list had also been drawn up. But according to him such appointment of the respondents as Mates is contrary to Rules and, therefore, such continuance does not confer a right of regularisation against the said post.

6. Mr. Goswami further contended that the respondent s pay, what they were drawing as Mates has been fully protected and, as such, there has been no illegality with the orders issued by the Railway Authorities regularisi