Temporary employment status does not confer rights for regularization or higher posts pending resolution of a related appeal.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The Original Petition assails the judgment dated 14.03.2017 passed in O.A. No.180/00981/2015 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as a temporary Peon in the Palakkad Division of Southern Railway. The petitioner underwent the due process of selection and successfully completed three years of apprenticeship training at the Railway Workshop in Golden Rock (Ponmalai) during the period from 19.04.2002 to 18.04.2005. According to Railway Board Orders, a person who has successfully completed apprenticeship can be appointed as a substitute and, upon completion of 120 days of continuous service, may be granted temporary status. The petitioner claimed promotion against the vacancy of Stenographer Grade III, PB-1 plus GP Rs. 2,400/-, under the 50% quota reserved for serving employees of the Palakkad Division. The petitioner submitted an application to the competent authority for consideration, which was rejected by order dated 19.11.2015. This rejection was challenged in the Original Application.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an identical issue was decided in favor of the employees by the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 8821/2007 . The said judgment of the Madras High Court is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 1909/2015 , wherein the Apex Court has granted the following interim order: “Railways will maintain status quo with respect to the employment of private respondents.”

4. The learned Tribunal, while disposing of the Original Application has categorically observed in paragraph 14, thus:

“14. Grant of temporary status will not amount to automatic regularization, the respondents contend. It has been stated in the order granting temporary status that the same will not confer on applicants any title or claim for continuance in the grade and for absorption in any regular establishment.

The applicants are only substitutes with temporary status. Grant of temporary status cannot be read as conferment of the status of a regular employee. Until and unless applicants get absorbed as a regular employee, they cannot aspire for appointment to higher post. It is submitted that the absorption of the entire lot of 530 substitutes which includes the applicants will depend upon the outcome of the pending Civil Appeal No. 1909/2015 . Any delay in absorption of these 530 substitutes in the Railway service cannot be attributed to them as they are bound by the order of Apex Court to maintain status quo and during the pendency of the aforesaid C.A the applicants cannot be considered for absorption, the respondents further contend. Unless the applicants are absorbed in Railway service, they cannot aspire for appointment in higher post, even provisionally. The notification dated 26.10.2015 clearly states that only regular employees in PB Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay between Rs.1800/- and Rs.2400/- who have completed 2 years minimum service are eligible for the above selection and therefore, applicants who are substitutes with temporary status are not eligible for the same. Their absorption into Railway Service will depend upon the decision of the Supreme Court in C.A.No.1909/2015. The High Court of Kerala has held in OP (CAT) No.177/2014 that unless applicants are regular employees they cannot aspire for appointment to higher post. Thus both judgments do not confer any right as regards the prayer of the applicant in O.A.No.981/2015. Any judicial indulgence by this Tribunal to even provisionally permit for participating in the selection examination