Back
Supreme Court Of India
RUMA PAL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.
INDER PAL YADAV AND OTHERS- Appellants
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS- Respondents
Writ Petitions (C) No. 548 of 2000 with Nos. 658-59 and SLPs (C) Nos. 4159-60 and 14048 of 2001,
Decided on January 13, 2003
Casual Employees - Railway Employment - Railway Establishment Manual - Trade Tests - Temporary Status - Regularisation - Promotion - Seniority - Absorption - Surplus Staff - Reversion - Anomalies - Efficiency - Fitment - Trade Test Exemptions - Further Promotions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were casual employees in the Northern Railway, seeking permanent absorption. They were granted temporary status and subsequently regularized as khalasis in Group D. They were also granted provisional promotions in various projects.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were regularized and continued to hold substantive posts in the open line division. The court rejected the petitioners' claim for higher promotions based on provisional promotions in projects and protected them against certain anomalies.
Issues: The issues involved the regularization, promotions, reversion, and entitlements of the petitioners as casual employees in the railway projects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were entitled to certain protections against anomalies but rejected their claims for higher promotions based on provisional appointments. The court also clarified exemptions from retaking trade tests and the limitations on further promotions.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions and special leave petitions with the aforementioned observations, vacating interim orders and making no order as to costs.
The principle of "Relief to Similarly Situated Persons" as articulated by the Court emphasizes that when the government or administrative authorities accept a legal principle or grant a benefit to a specific group of employees, they should extend the same to all employees who are in a comparable situation. This approach ensures fairness and consistency in the application of rules and prevents arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.
In the context of the case, the Court recognized that the petitioners, who had been regularized and granted certain promotions, should not be unfairly disadvantaged or subjected to inconsistent treatment compared to their similarly situated colleagues. The Court's stance underscores the importance of equitable treatment for all employees who share similar circumstances, thereby reducing the likelihood of unnecessary litigation and promoting administrative consistency.
This principle encourages authorities to adopt a uniform approach in extending benefits or legal principles, ensuring that employees in comparable positions are treated equally, and that any deviations are justified and transparent.
ORDER
1. The writ petitioners before us had been appointed as casual employees in different projects of the Northern Railway in the years 1979 to 1981.
Because of uncertainty of their tenure, they filed writ petitions before this Court, during the pendency of which, a scheme was framed by the Railway Authorities for granting the petitioners temporary status with a view to permanent absorption. This scheme was approved with certain modifications, which are not relevant for the purpose of this petition, by the decision of this Court in Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India1. The scheme was implemented and the petitioners were categorised as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled. The implementation of the scheme was upheld again by this Court when the petitioners filed a complaint in this regard before this Court on 11-8-1986. The third petition filed by the petitioners or some of them was disposed of by this Court on 30-10-1986 in which this Court said that the petitioners before being "absorbed as khalasis on temporary status have to submit themselves to medical examination which is usually taken before a person is conferred temporary status". It was also made clear that the Railway Administration would give full benefit of actual service to the petitioners for the purpose of counting their seniority and it would be open to the Railway Administration to absorb the petitioners on temporary status either as work khalasis or as gang khalasis in the appropriate scale.
2. The fourth order in the field is an order dated 2-12-1987 on a separate writ petition, in which the petitioners alleged that although the petitioners had served continuously for a long period of time, the Railway Administration had neither permitted them seniority nor granted them the same rate of wages as regular employees. This Court by its decision Ram Kumar2 noted that the petitioners had admittedly been in service for more than 360 days and according to the Railway Authorities, they were entitled to temporary status. In the judgment this Court said: (SCC p. 309, para 8)
"8. In the Signal and Telecom Construction Organisation under which the petitioners are working, according to the Railway Administration further privileges of being regularised in permanent service is afforded by giving them access to their regularisation against permanent vacancies which mostly occur in open line. For such purpose, e casual labour in open line as well as willing project casual labour are combined for the purpose of screening and forming of panel on the basis of seniority depending upon the days of work put in. In view of the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has pleaded that the allegation of discrimination does not exist."
3. This Court also noted the provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual, which, inter alia deals with the grant of regular status to a temporary appointee after selection through regular Selection Boards for Class IV staff. The Court, accordingly, directed that since many of the petitioners had been empanelled, the Railway Authority was expected to take prompt steps to screen such of the petitioners who were still waiting for the purpose of regularisation of their service.
4. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the orders of this Court, the petitioners were regularised as khalasis in Group D in the open line. However, they have been permitted to continue to serve in various projects of the Railway Administration. While they were serving in such projects, they have been granted provisional promotion in a particular corresponding scale of pay on the basis of supplementary trade test held in the project itself. However, the order by which such petitioners were granted local provisional or ad hoc promotion made it clear that they would not claim over their seniors in other units. The reason for the filing of these petitions before us by the petitioners is the preparation of lists of surplus staff in the projects. It is the petitioners case that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
