Dismissed

C.Sekar v. Union of India rep. by

Madras HC19 Sept 2023WP/15918/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the Central Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting casual railway labourers' claims for absorption into the Trackmen post. Finding petitioners failed to prove casual labour status, the Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs. The order of the Tribunal was upheld.

C.Sekar Vs Union of India rep. by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on:18.08.2023 Delivered on: 19.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶8

W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶9

1.C.Sekar 2.S.Panner Selvam 3.N.Pushparaj 4.Y.Yobhuraja 5.M.Kannan 6.P.Prakasam 7.S.Sreenivasan 8.S.Chandrasekaran 9.S.Arumugam 10.R.Anbazhagan 11.V.Balakrishnan 12.M.Pavadairayan 13.Y.Pavunraj 14.S.Babu 15.A.Sukumar ... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.Union of India rep. by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-3

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

¶14

W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶15

2.The Divisional Railway Manager Tiruchirappalli Division Southern Railway, Trichy.

¶16

3.The Divisional Personnel Officer Tiruchirappalli Division Southern Railway, Trichy.

¶17

4.The Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶18

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 4^th respondent made in O.A.No.310/01172/2014 dated 11.08.2015, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb the petitioners in the post of Trackmen.

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar (for R1 to R3) Standing Counsel

¶20

R4 – Tribunal

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI,J.)

¶23

The unsuccessful applicants before the Tribunal are the Writ Petitioners before us, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

¶24

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶27

Mandamus to quash the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.310/01172/2014 dated 11.08.2015 and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb the petitioners to the post of Trackmen.

¶28

The brief facts that are necessary for deciding the present Writ Petition are as follows:

¶29

The petitioners were engaged as casual labourers during the year 1983 under the Permanent Way Inspectors (presently Senior Section Engineers/P.Way) in the Engineering Department, Tiruchirapally Division, Southern Railway. The petitioners state that 345 casual labourers including the petitioners were brought into the supplementary casual labour register as on 2003. The grievance of the petitioners is that according to the Railway Board's practice, all classified vacancies that became available upto 31.12.1982 should be filled from among casual labourers and substitutes, with a special relaxation in respect of Class IV vacancies in workshops due to special requirement of workshops and that despite being eligible the respondents have not regularized the petitioners, who were all casual labourers.

¶30

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶33

The respondents filed a counter before the Tribunal denying the claim of the petitioners that they were all casual labourers. The said contention of the respondents came to be accepted by the Tribunal and the impugned order came to be passed, holding that the petitioners never worked as casual labourers in the Railways and therefore they cannot claim any legal right to the status of casual labourers and consequently seek absorption.

¶34

Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. We have also perused the records and also the order of the Tribunal.

¶35

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioners' claim that they were all entitled for absorption and in such process the Tribunal has not considered several instructions on the said subject that came to be issued by the respondent themselves and that when several casual labourers were included for appointment to the post of Trackman, the petitioners were also entitled for being absorbed.

¶36

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶39

Per contra, learned Standing counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned order does not require any interference as admittedly the petitioners were not casual labourers and they have not been able to establish the said factum even before the Tribunal by producing any reliable or relevant piece of evidence and he therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶40

The documents that are relied on by the petitioners are certificates

¶41

issued by the Permanent Way Inspector, Mayiladuthurai Junction, Southern Railway Mayavaram. On a perusal of the various certificates that have been issued to the petitioners, it is evident that the petitioners were engaged as labourers for a brief period of time viz., between 28.12.1983 and 04.01.1984 to meet flood/emergency situation. The said certificates clearly spells out that the concerned labourers would not be entitled for engagement as casual labourers and that they will have no claim for being considered for engagement as such, in future, as a matter of course. It is also mentioned that no medical examination was carried out. Thus, it can

¶42

be seen that the respondents have made it abundantly clear that the petitioners cannot claim to be casual labourers. Except for the certificates,

¶43

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶46

the petitioners have not produced any other documents before the Tribunal

¶47

to establish their legal right to claim absorption. The Tribunal has also rightly considered all these factors and found that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers and even from the relevant documents it was noticed that they were not even listed in the casual labour service camp. The certificates issued to the petitioners and relied on by the petitioners before the Tribunal as well as before us does not give us a slightest indication that the petitioners were employed as casual labourers. On the other hand, it only clearly shows that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers.

¶48

We are therefore unable to accept the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioners. The order of the Tribunal is well reasoned and does not call for any interference.

¶49

In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶50

(D.K.K.J) & (P.B.B.J) 19.09.2023

¶51

Internet : Yes Index:Yes/No Neutral citation:Yes/No mjs

¶52

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶55

¶56

1.Union of India rep. by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-3

¶57

2.The Divisional Railway Manager Tiruchirappalli Division Southern Railway, Trichy.

¶58

3.The Divisional Personnel Officer Tiruchirappalli Division Southern Railway, Trichy.

¶59

4.The Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai.

¶60

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶63

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J., and P.B.BALAJI,J mjs

¶64

Pre-delivery order in W.P.No.15918 of 2019

¶65

19.09.2023

¶66

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Sekar v. Union of India rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sekar v. Union of India rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs v. Rajagopalan, I.R.S.

The Director General Quality Assurance Vs M.Babu a.E(Qa) (Retired)

P.kandasamy Vs Union of India

The Managin Director Vs Balamurugan

M/S Ei Forge Ltd. Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Union of India Vs P.Swaminathan