THE HON’BLE MR v. R.O. Rajendran2. K. Thirugnanasambandam3. G.E. Lenin4. S. Suresh5. M. Kondala Rao6. P

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:06-07-2005CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAMandTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAMW.P.No.24043 of 2001….1. The Union of India, rep. by Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.2. The General Manager Integral Coach Factory Chennai 600 038.3. The Member Secretary Railway Recruitment Board Ganga Building, Chennai 34... Petitionersvs.1. R.O. Rajendran2. K. Thirugnanasambandam3. G.E. Lenin4. S. Suresh5. M. Kondala Rao6. P. Ramesh7. V. Mohan Ram8. T. Baskar9. R. Gopinath10.V. Kumaran11.T.C. Gnanasekar12.A.S. Zameer Basha13.K. Murali14.S. Sridhar15.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench rep. by its Registrar Chennai 600 104... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for an issuance of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.For petitioners : Mr. V. RadhakrishnanFor respondents : Mr. R. Ganesan for R.1 to R.14..ORDER(ORDER of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)….Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,Madras Bench dated 23.8.2001 made in O.A.No.522 of 2000, the RailwayAdministration (Integral Coach Factory - in short, ICF) has filed theabove writ petition.2. Heard Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners and Mr.R.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for therespondents 1 to 14.3. The respondents 1 to 14 herein/applicants before the Tribunal,who are unskilled Khalasi Helpers, on the apprehension that they wouldbe retrenched at any time, approached the Tribunal for necessarydirection to frame a scheme and to fill up the posts in CivilEngineering Department of ICF after conducting a General DepartmentalExamination and also to accommodate them in suitable appropriate Group-C posts. 4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents/applicants relied on theorder of the Tribunal dated 15.12.1993 made in O.A.Nos.1198 to 1200 of1991, etc. batch filed by Technical Mates in the Southern Railwayseeking regularization of their services in Group-C posts, instead ofbeing absorbed in Group-D posts, wherein the Tribunal issued directionsto the respondents therein to prepare a scheme to fill up 25% quota ofskilled category in Group-C posts and also to consider the case ofapplicants therein. It is the claim of the respondents/applicantsherein that their case is also similar. It is also their grievance thateven though there are number of vacancies in Group-C posts, theapplicants have not been considered in spite of their requisitequalifications since they had been absorbed in Group-D posts. 5. The Railway Administration filed a counter before the Tribunalstating that all 14 applicants, who possess Diploma in CivilEngineering, were engaged as Casual Labour Technical Assistants inCivil Engineering Department during 1987-89 and on completion of 120days of continuous service without break, they were given temporarystatus with a time scale of pay. When the question of regularabsorption comes, they are normally absorbed only in Group-D posts. Ontheir absorption in Group-D posts, they should seek progression in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ normal avenue. The normal avenue of progression for Khalasis is thepromotion to the next higher grade, namely, Khalasi Helper in the scaleof pay, Rs.800-1150/-. The applicants can seek progression to Group-Cas Technician, Grade-III in different trades by responding tonotifications issued from time to time. None of the applicants isentitled to get absorbed in Group-C posts.6. The Tribunal, before considering the claim of the applicants,verified the order passed by it in O.A.Nos.1198 to 1200 of 1991, etc.batch dated 15.12.1993. Those applications were filed by TechnicalMates (Casual Labour). The grievance of those persons was that eventhough they were qualified to be absorbed in Group-C posts, they wereabsorbed only in Group-D posts. On the proposal of General Manager ofRailway Board and on the orders of the Tribunal, the applicantstherein were absorbed in Group-C posts after framing a scheme.Precisely, the applicants in this case seek a similar relief as theyshould be treated in the same way after framing a scheme.7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, RailwayAdministration submitted that the said decision is not applicable tothe applicants in the present case. However, it is relevant to notethat the very same objection was projected before the Tribunal by theRailway Administration and after verifying the pleadings, the Tribunalconcluded that the chance of promotion in so far as applicants areconcerned is limited and some scheme or formula has to be formulated tosatisfy their requirements. It is relevant to refer to the statementmade in the additional counter that as a special case, all theapplicants are being considered as Junior Engineer Grade-II afterholding a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Learnedcounsel for the respondents/applicants has brought to our notice thatthe General Manager, Southern Railway himself has addressed to theSecretary, Railway Board on 3.4.1997, sanctioning of such scheme toventilate the grievance of the applicants. As rightly stated by theTribunal, the said letter of the General Manager, Southern Railwayshows that most of casual labours including the applicants are highlyqualified and their services and experience could be utilized byappointing them as Junior Engineer Grade-II. It is true that theRailway Board has not sent any reply. However, the Tribunal takingnote of the earlier order passed in respect of similarly placedpersons working in the Southern Railway, considering the letter of theGeneral Manager addressed to the Railway Board and of the fact that theapplicants/casual labours are highly qualified and the avenue ofpromotion is very limited, issued a direction to the RailwayAdministration to prepare a scheme as directed in the earlier ordermade in batch of cases, cited supra and thereafter consider the case ofapplicants on the basis of their qualifications by conducting a GeneralDepartmental Competitive Examination to Group-C Posts. In the lightof the factual position and earlier order of the Tribunal which wasimplemented by the Railway Administration, considering the limited https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ avenue of promotion and the qualifications of the applicants, we aresatisfied that the Tribunal is fully justified in issuing thedirection. It is to be noted that there is no positive directionissued to absorb the applicants without evolving any formula. Asdirected by the Tribunal, the Railway Administration has to prepare ascheme considering the length of service and qualifications of theapplicants and thereafter consider their case on the basis of theirperformance by conducting a General Departmental CompetitiveExamination. We are satisfied that the Tribunal, by the impugneddirection, has not only granted the relief to the applicants, but alsosafeguarded the interest of the Railway Administration and we do notfind any valid ground for interference. On the other hand, we are inagreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkhTo1.The RegistrarCentral AdministrativeTribunal, Madras BenchChennai 600 104.2. The Secretary to Govt., Union of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.3. The General Manager Integral Coach Factory Chennai 600 038. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The Member Secretary Railway Recruitment Board Ganga Building, Chennai 34.+1cc to Mr.V.Radha Krishnan, Standing Counsel for Railway SR 28098PV (CO)km/11.7 W.P.No.24043 of 2001