Casual workers in railway welfare institutions not entitled to regularization absent due process per Uma Devi principles.

ORDER

This original application has been filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking relief to set aside the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the respondent no. 6 and to direct the respondents to absorb and regularize the applicant at any suitable post and to pay regular salary.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was appointed as Safai Karmi in the office of respondent no. 5, which is the Semi Government Institution of the Indian Railway, on 06.03.2003. The contention of the applicant is that a Chhan Examination was conducted by the Railway Department through the General Manager and its result was declared on 03.11.2006 in which the Hasth Shilp Kala Centre, Gorakhpur is mentioned at Sl. No. 3. It is further contended that the office of respondent no. 6 through its Secretary issued a letter dated 07.07.2014 seeking education qualification of all the employees of the Semi Government Institutions governed by the office of respondent no. 6 in which the Hasth Shilp Kala Centre, Gorakhpur is mentioned at Sl. No. 4. Thereafter, the office of respondent no. 6 issued a letter dated 17.11.2014 through its Secretary mentioning therein that the institution is directed to be closed forthwith and the employees of the institutions should be adjusted at appropriate places. But, all of a sudden, on 21.01.2015 the applicant was asked to sit on bench and no work was assigned to him.

3. The applicant‟s contention is that he is physically challenged person with 40% disability and continuously working in the office of respondent no. 5 about 12 hours and all of a sudden he has been compelled to sit on the bench and thereafter, his services have been dispensed with by an oral direction without affording any opportunity of hearing. He further contended that the action of respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such the order dated 21.01.2015 is liable to be set aside and the relief claimed in the OA should be allowed.

4. Upon notice, the respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein they have denied the claim of the applicant by stating that the Hasth Shilp Kala Centre (Handicraft Centre) was set up under staff welfare scheme to impart training to women members of railway employees‟ family in trades such as stitching etc with the object of helping them to get trained to augment family income and was being managed by a managing committee with the assistance from Staff Benefit Fund. They further stated that for the purpose of keeping the centre clean, the Chairman of the Committee engaged the applicant as Safaiwala for two days in a week on remuneration of Rs. 25/- per day on 06.03.2003. Thereafter, the number of days was increased from two days to four days in October 2003 and again from four days to six days in September 2005 on the remuneration of Rs. 25/- per day. The respondents vehemently contended that the persons engaged in the Handicraft Centre are not railways employee as the engagement was done by the Chairman of the managing committee on remuneration basis and not by the Railway administration. They further say that as the Handicraft Centre was not functioning and was redundant, and so it was decided to close the same and after that, as the services of Safaiwala was not required, the engagement of the applicant was terminated on 22.01.2015 by the Chairman of the managing committee. They further say that at the time of engagement, the applicant has also declared that he will not be a railway employee and will not be eligible for any benefit of railway employee. Thus, the respondents have rightly passed the o