JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Shri Rajesh Tripathi, Shri Gaurav Kumar Chand and Shri Manu Vardhana, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners, Shri K.M. Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondent and Shri S.S.P. Gupta and Shri Devendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. Since the issue involved in the connected writ petitions are consequential to the impugned order dated 09.11.2009 (challenged in Writ C No. 7273/2010), by which the recovery proceeds under challen, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. Writ - C No. - 7273 of 2010 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in all the matters. The other connected writ petitions are confined to recovery amount in pursuance of the impugned order dated 09.11.2009.

Writ - C No. - 7273 of 2010

3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2009 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur, the respondent no. 1.

4. The brief facts of the case, leading to the present controversy, are that on 01.09.1986, 110 casual daily wage employees were retrenched by the Railway Department. On 09.10.1989, the Labour Department of the Central Government made a reference to CGIT, Kanpur. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal made an award dated 16.01.1996 for reinstatement of all 110 employees without back wages. The said award was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2385/1997. On 13.12.2004, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the matter was referred by the Railway Department for filing SLP before the Apex Court, but the Railway Board had not given approval for filing SLP before the Apex Court and therefore, the order of the Tribunal became final. On 18.08.2006, the petitioner complied with the direction given in the award dated 16.01.1996 and reinstated the respondent nos. 2 to 11 as well as all other persons as daily wagers.

5. In the year 2007, the Railway initiated regularization process of daily wage workers as per the Rules and during the regularization process, 74 persons were turned up, out of 110 persons, one person had already superannuated and one person had not turned up for screening and 4 persons declared as medically unfit in all category. Thereafter, the screening committee examined all the persons, who were present on 26.06.2007 and 27.06.2007 before the Committee and recommended 58 persons for regularization on Group 'D' post.

6. The requisite educational qualification for Group 'D' post was Class VIII pass, but in the case of Gangman/Trackman, there is no requirement of educational qualification of Class VIII pass, while for them, medical category of A-1 & B-1 was necessary, meaning thereby, if any persons having fulfilled medical criteria for Gangman/Trackman, they were regularized even through they do not possess Class VIII certificate.

7. The respondent nos. 2 to 11 are illiterate having no educational qualification of Class VIII, nor they fulfilled medical criteria of A-1 & B-1 category and in such situation, the Department referred the matter before the Railway Board for relaxation in educational criteria for regularization in Group 'D' post on 07.12.2007, which was refused by the Railway Board on 03.01.2008. On refusal of the Railway Board, the Department initiated retrenchment process of all those 10 persons (respondent nos. 2 to 11) and after giving notice and salary of one month under s