The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of equal opportunity and the requirements for regularization of irregular appointments under the relevant legal provisions.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 137/2013(R) (Annexure-8) and also rejection of the Review Application by order dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure-10), petitioner has preferred the writ petition representing himself as the Secretary of Indian Railway Coal Ash and transport Workshop Mazdoor Union. The applicant claims to represent 110 Mazdoors who were engaged as canteen workers from 1990 to 2000 for seeking regularization of their services from the date of their initial engagement and treating them as Railway employees with all consequential benefits.

3. As per the case set up by the applicant themselves before the Learned Tribunal in the original application, they were engaged in Loco-shed directly by the contractor and not by the Railways. Due to the phasing out of steam locos, they were removed by the contractor. Admittedly, no supporting documents were enclosed to the original application by the applicants to establish their case. As a matter of fact, applicants sought to furnish documents in their support after matter has been argued.

4. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant / writ petitioner, it appears that the applicant was allowed a chance as an exceptional measure to submit documents in their support by the Learned Tribunal before final order was pronounced. These five registers which were submitted by the applicant, unsupported by any affidavit, purportedly pertain to the period 1991 to 2000. Learned Tribunal after perusal of the entries made in these registers, did not find it worth reliance. It has observed that though, registers appear to be old, interior pages and entries made are too neat and clean and fresh to be genuine. All the entires claimed to cover a period of ten years, have been made in the same handwriting and same ink. The first page of these registers show a signature by the same Loco Foreman for the entire period of 1991-2000. The said signature is also quite fresh. Learned Tribunal had suspicion over the genuinity of these documents. Learned Tribunal also observed that these documents did not show what nexus said persons had with the Railways and in what capacity they worked for the Railways.

5. Respondents contested the case and took the plea that the claim for regularization has been raised after more than twelve years; the O.A. is fit to be rejected on the grounds of limitation alone. As per Railways, these persons claim regularization stating that the they were engaged by the contractor and therefore, Learned CAT was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the case of the contract labourers. It was further contended that East Central Railway came into existence in the year 2003 by carving out Divisions from North Eastern Railway and Eastern Railway. These persons claim themselves to have worked under the contractor in Coal and Ash handling Units from 1990-2000 prior to formation of East Central Railway. They relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] in support of their contention that those employed on daily wages or temporary or on contractual basis, cannot claim a right to be absorbed in service. Learned Tribunal was not satisfied with the case set up by the applicant for regularization of these persons, either on facts or on law, more so in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Uma Devi (Supra). The review application filed thereafter has also been rejected on the grounds that there were no apparent errors on the face of record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laboured to impress that the case of these persons have not been considered in proper perspective after due application of mind to the relevant supporting documents produced on their behalf. Learned counsel has placed the case of the applicant at par with those cant