Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1830
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Ram Bhajan Das - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 52 of 2016
Decided On : 28-11-2018
A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv., R. Balasubramaninan, Amit Sharma, R. R. Rajesh, Harish Pandey, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Dr. Arun Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mrs. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Prashant Shukla, Anand Nandan, Ms. Shreya Mishra, Dr. Satyebdra Kumar Mishra, Satyajeet Kumar, Ms. Priya Kashyap, G. D. Ahmed, Md. Mohsin, Ms. Vandana S., Narender Kumar Verma, Mrs. Divya Swami, Mrs. Prabha Swami, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prashant Shukla, Harishankar Jain, T. N. Tripathi, Ranjeet Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, P. K. Jain, Saurabh Jain, P. K. Goswami, S. P. Singh Rathore, Ashok K. Sharma, Uday Prakah Yadav, Mrs. Anuradha Soni Verma, Shryansh Aggarwal, Rajesh Goyal, H. Arjun, Nikhil Tyagi, V. K. Biju, Abhay Pratap Singh, Mullapudi Rambabu, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sunil Mathew, Dhananjay Garg, Dinesh K. Garg, P. V. Yogeswaran, Abhishek Garg, Deepak Mishra, Chandan Ramamurthi, Mohd. Asad Khan, Danish Zubair Khan, Sunil J. Mathews, B. V. Balram Das, Aijt Kumar Sinha, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, B. Rajesh, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Advocates, For the Appearing Parties
The court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to provide relief in exceptional cases, such as considering long service and the existence of a power for relaxation.
Headnote:
Railways - Appointment in Grade D post - All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters' Union v. Union of India and Others - (2003) 11 SCC 590
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought appointment in Grade D post in Railways based on a previous court decision. The Railways objected to their lack of required educational qualifications.
Finding of the Court:
Considering the long service rendered by the petitioners, the court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and directed the Railways to consider the petitioners' names for appointment, ignoring the objection on qualification.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioners' eligibility for appointment in Grade D post in Railways due to their lack of required educational qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that despite the objection on qualification, the long service rendered by the petitioners and the existence of a power for relaxation warranted the invocation of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Railways to consider the names of the petitioners for appointment, ignoring the objection on qualification, and to pass the required orders within a specified period.
JUDGMENT
Kurian, J. - Writ Petition (C) No. 794 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 240 of 2018
The petitioners are before this Court seeking appointment in Grade D post in Railways. Their claim is rested on the decision of this Court in All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters' Union v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 590 . It appears that the objection is that the petitioners have not acquired the required educational qualifications in terms of the rules.
But taking note of the long service rendered by the petitioners and taking note of the fact that there is a power for relaxation and taking note of the further fact that it is a onetime measure, we are of the view that it is a fit case for invocation of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and give a quietus to the entire litigations. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Railways to consider the names of the petitioners in case they are otherwise eligible, ignoring the objection on qualification and pass the required orders within a period of one month from today.
W.P. (C) No. 52/2016, W.P.(C) No. 155/2017, W.P.(C) No. 167/2016, W.P.(C) No. 282/2012, W.P.(C) No. 910/2016, W.P.(C) No. 497/2012, W.P.(C) No. 53/2017, W.P.(C) No. 113/2018, W.P.(C) No. 745/2017, W.P.(C) No. 781/2017, W.P.(C) No. 773/2017, W.P.(C) No. 754/2017, SLP(C) No. 3293/2018, W.P.(C) No. 986/2017, W.P.(C) No. 969/2017, W.P.(C) No. 1017/2017, W.P.(C) No. 1073/2017, W.P.(C) No. 38/2018, W.P. (C) No. 82/2018, W.P.(C) No. 85/2018, W.P.(C) No. 121/2018, W.P.(C) No. 269/2018, W.P.(C) No. 230/2018, W.P.(C) No. 386/2018, W.P.(C) No. 605/2018, W.P.(C) No. 618/2018, W.P.(C) No. 627/2018, W.P.(C) No. 786/2018, W.P.(C) No. 1190/2018, W.P. (C) No. 1168/2018, W.P.(C) No. 1132/2018, W.P.(C) No. 1294/2018, W.P.(C) No. 1329/2018
All impleadment/intervention applications are allowed.
2. In all these petitions, the petitioners/applicants/interveners have sought for absorption as Grade D employees in the Railways on the ground that they have been working as Parcel and Goods Porters in the Railway Stations.
3. We find that the issue was considered by a Bench of three Judges of this Court, leading to the Judgment dated 22.08.2003 in All India Railway Parcel & Goods Porters' Union v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 590 . The operative portion of the Judgment reads as follows :-
"34. We have carefully examined the report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the findings recorded therein and the counter affidavits, reply affidavits and rejoinder filed by the respective parties. The facts disclosed in the report and the findings recorded in regard to the perennial nature of work cannot be overruled. Though we have heard at length both the parties, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Railway Administration was not able to point out to us any valid reason as to why the present writ petitions should not be allowed in terms of the order dated 15.04.1991 made by this Court in similar Writ Petition No. 277 of 1988, particularly when in the matter of absorption of contract labour by a public undertaking on a permanent regular basis. We feel, therefore, it is just and appropriate to issue the following directions to the respondent Union of India and Railway Administration Units:
1. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Lucknow is directed to again scrutinize all the records already placed by the petitioners and also the record to be placed by the respective contractors and railway administration and discuss and deliberate with all parties and ultimately arrive at a conclusion in regard to the genuineness and authenticity of each and every claimant for regularization. This exercise shall be done within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
2. Subject to the outcome of the fresh enquiry and the report to be submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Railway Administration should absorb them permanently and
