Tribunal orders for regularization must be implemented within specified timelines despite affirmed appeals; antedate appointments notionally without stay interference.

O R D E R Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :

1. The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):

i) Direction upon the respondents to impliment the order dated 22.03.2005 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1005 of 1998 (Anes Sheik & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.)

ii) Direction upon the respondents to give the anti-dated appointment to the applicants and notional fixation of pay scale upto 7th May, 2018 and payments of arrears, if any.

iii) Direction upon the respondents to release the financial benefits to the legal heirs of Abdul Majid and Abdul Rashid who were the applicants in O.A. No.1005 of 1998.

iv) To pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. In respect of M.A. No. 350/00724 of 2019, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that with regard to antedated appointment, the petitioners cannot claim jointly, they ought to have come separately.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that applicant nos. 9 & 10 indicated in SLP No. 4467 of 2017 have died before the final judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, they are not entitled to any benefit as Railway servant because they are not Railway employee. Legal heirs cannot join in a single petition with working employee.

It is seen that the relief sought by the applicants is regularisation of their service from 2005, when the applicants or their husbands were alive. In our opinion, the applicants have a common cause of action.

Therefore, M.A. No. 350/724/2019 for joint prosecution under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is allowed. The applicants are allowed to pursue the remedy jointly.

3. The applicants had filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata praying for a Writ in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents directing them to show cause why the names of the petitioners should not be listed in the list of Casual Labourers and why the petitioners should not be absorbed in the permanent list of substitutes and also directing upon the respondents to pay all arrears of pay and wages to the petitioners The above said application was registered as CA No. 248 of 1991, CA No. 57 of 1993, which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal numbered as TA No. 22 of 1989 after the promulgation of Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985. The above said TA application was disposed of by the Hon'ble Tribunal on 10.06.1993 with the following order:

"That the respondent No. 2 General Manager, ER, shall depute an appropriate D.P.O. or any other competent officer for the purpose of screening the present applicants to ascertain as to whether they have worked as Parcel handling porters at Barhawra Station for a period of 120 days and more and if so, they shall be properly screened and place in the appropriate screening list of casual workers and shall be given the appropriate jobs as parcel handling porters on casual basis as long as such work is available for them and shall be paid in accordance with the rules of payment of casual workers and if they are entitled to get the temporary status, they shall be so given. In the meantime the applicants shall accept whatever the payments are offered to them for the past service and they shall accept it without prejudice. But after they are properly screened and appointed casual workers they shall have to be paid as casual workers according to the relevant railway Circulars Till such time the status- quo shall be maintained as on to-day. The screening has to be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of t