Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusMOTI LAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 261
- Decided
- 15 February 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A temporary or casual appointment as a Mate does not create a legal right to be regularised in that post; mates must be filled by promotion from lower grades under the railway rules.
Summary
The respondents, who had been directly appointed as casual mates in Class III of the Northern Railway, were later regularised as gangmen (Class IV) by the railway authorities. They contended that their long‑term service as mates and the temporary status conferred upon them entitled them to be regularised as mates. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed that they be regularised as mates, a decision appealed by the Union of India. The Supreme Court examined whether the railway rules permit direct appointment as a mate and whether a temporary status automatically creates a right to regularisation in that post. It held that a mate is a promotional post that can be filled only by promotion from gangman/keyman after a trade test, and that temporary status does not confer a right to regularisation as a mate. Although the Court agreed with this legal view, it declined to disturb the Tribunal’s equitable conclusion given the respondents’ 22‑25 years of service, and dismissed the appeals. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the railway rules permit direct appointment of a person as a Mate in Class III and, if not, whether continuous service as a casual Mate creates a right to regularisation as a Mate.
- Whether the conferment of temporary status as a Mate ipso facto entitles the employee to be regularised in that post.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Railway service rulesCasual employeeRegularisationPromotionTemporary statusAdministrative lawEquityIndustrial Disputes Act
Judgment
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
v.
MOTi LAL AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 15, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.] B
SelVice Lllw :
Railway-Class III post-Appointment of casual Mat~egularisation
of-Orders by the central Administrative Tribunal-On appeal, held : it is not C
pennissible to appoint a person directly as a mate and it is only a promotional
post from Class W of Gangman and Keyman-Respondents did not acquire
a right for regularisation as Mates on their mere continuance as casual Mate
for a considerable period-Confennent of temporary status as Mate ipso facto
does not entitle the person concemed for regular absorption as Mate-How-
ever it will be inequitable to require the respondents after 22 to 25 years of D
selVice to be regularised against class W posts-Hence on equitable grounds
the ultimate conclusions of the Tribunal not inte1fered with.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3619-24
of 1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.94 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A.S. Nos. 874, 1606, 1788/92, 1029,
1030-31 of 1993.
N.N. Goswami, AK. Srivastava, Arvind Kr. Sharma, for the Appel-
b~ F
S.K. Dhaon, Shyam Sunder Sharma, Anis Suhrawardy, Mrs.
Shamama Anis and Zalli Ahmed Khan for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
These appeals by the Union of India are directed against the orders
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad directing the H
727
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) 2 S.C.R.
A Railways 191thorities to absorb the respondents on regular basis as Mates.
The respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad challenging the orders dated 18.2.93 and 11.6.93 passed by the
Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Northern Railway regularising the
B respondents in the post of Gangman in the grade of Rs. 775 to Rs. 1025 in
class IV. It was alleged by the respondents that they had been directly
appointed as casual Mate in class III post in Northern Railway and after
continuously working for more than 120 days they acquired temporary
status as mates. It was also averred that before conferring temporary status
on them they were required to pass the trade test and in pursuance to the
C directions of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar's case (Writ Petition Nos.
15863-15906 of 1984 disposed of on 2nd December 1987) they were con-
ferred to temporary status as mates and a seniority list had been drawn up.
While they were so continuing, the two ii;n.pugned orders emanated
regularising them against the post of Gangman in class IV. accordingly they
D prayed before the Tribunal that the Railway Authorities should be
directed to regularise them against the post of Mates. The appellants -
Railway Authorities took the stand. before the Tribunal that the post of
Mate is a promotional post and can be filled on regular basis only by
considering the employees from lower grade of Gangman/keyman/senior
keyman. They did not dispute the fact that the respondents· were granted
E temporary status against the post of Mates but contended that since the
Gangman can only be promoted on regular basis to the post of Mate
subject to his fitness and qualification the Authorities have regularised the
respondents by the impugned order in the lowest post of Gangman. The
Tribunal on consideration of the respective stand of the parties came to
F the conclusion that since the respondents have worked all these year as
Mate right from the inception it would not be appropriate to regularise
them against the lower post as Gangman and accordingly directed that they
be regularised against the post of Mate. It is this order of the Tribunal
which is being assailed in these appeals.
G Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of
India and other Railway Authorities contended that the conferment of the ...
temporary status on a casual employee does not ipso facto entitle him to
be regularised to the said post and, therefore, merely because the respon-
dents were given temporary status against the post of Mates the Tribunal
H erred in law in directing their regularisation as Mates. He further con-
U.0.1. v. MOTI LAL 729
tended that under the Rules in railways a person has to be appointed in A
-- the lowest of Gangman and from the said post the next promotional post
is keyman and then senior keyman which are the posts in class IV and
thereafter those of the senior keyman who are found suitable for promotion
to the post of Mate after holding a trade test, are promoted to the post of
'Mate' in class III. This being the normal procedure of promotion it would
be wholly inequitable and contrary to Rules to regularise the respondents
B
- as Mates. It was not disputed. however, that the respondents on account
of dearth of people had been appointed as Mates and continued as such
for all these year and also had been conferred with the temporary status
against the post of Mate and a seniority list had also been drawn up. But
according to him such appointment of the respondents as Mates is contrary C
to Rules and, therefore, such continuance does not confer a right of
regularisation against the said post.
Mr. Goswami further contended that the respondents' pay, what they
were drawing as Mates has been fully protected and, as such, there has
been no illegality with the orders issued by the Railway Authorities D
regularising the respondents as Gangman.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other
hand, contended that there is no bar for direct appointment as Mate and
infact the respondents having been appointed as Mates and their services E
having been utilised by the Railway Authorities for more than 20 years and
they having been given temporary status it is not permissible for the
Railway authorities to regularise them as Gangman. Consequently, the
Tribullfl.l was justified in issuing the impugned directions.
'
In view of the rival stand and the parties two questions really arise F
for our consideration;
1. Is it permissible under Rules to appoint a person directly as mate
in Class III and if not, then whether the factually continuance of the person
as a Mate for a considerable period entitles him to be regularised as a G
Mate?
2. Conferment of a temporary status as a Mate whether ipso facto
entitles a person to be regularised as a Mate and not as a Gangman?
So far as the first question is concerned, on examining the relevant H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.
A provisions of the Rules as well as the Administrative instructions issued by
the Railway ~uthorities we are of the considered opinion that it is not
--
·r~
permissible to appoint a person directly as a Mate and it is only a
promotional post from class IV post of Gangman and Keyman. These
Gangman and keyman can be promoted to the post of Mate in Class III
subject to their suitability and efficiency being tested through Trade test.
B It is no doubt true that these respondents under certain circumstances had
been appointed directly as casual Mates and they continued as such and
further by virtue of their -continuance they acquired temporary status but
that by itself does not entitle them to be regularised as Mate since that
would be contrary to the rules in force. In our considered opinion the
C respondents did not acquire a right for regularisation as Mates from mere
fact of their continuance as casuaJ Mate for a considerable period.
So far as the second question is concerned, we are also of the
considered opinion that conferment of the temporary status as Mate ipso
facto does not entitle the person concerned for regular absorption as Mate.
D It the case of Ram Kumar v. Union of India, (Writ Petition Nos. 15863-
15906 of 1984 disposed of on 2nd December 1987) this Court has held
that an employee on daily wage basis under the Railway acquires number
of days in service and with the acquisition of said status such employees
are entitled to : ·
E · (1) Termination of service and period of notice (subject to the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947).
(2) Scales· of pay.
F (3). Compensatory and local allow~ces.
(4) Medical attendance.
(5) Leave rules. '
G (6) Provident Fund and terminal gratuity•.
(7) Allotment of railway accommodation and recovery of rent
(8) Railway passes.
H (9) Advances.
U.0.1. v. MOTI LAL 731
(10) Any other benefit specifically authorised by the Ministry A
of Railways.
Thus it is apparent that a daily wage or casual worker against a
particular post when acquires a temporary status having worked against the
said post for specified number of days does not acquire a right to be
regularised against the said post. He can be considered for regularisation B
in accordance with the Rules and therefore, so far as as the post of Mate
under Railways is concerned, the same has to be filled up by a promotion
from the post of Gangman and Keyman in Class IV subject to employees
passing the trade test.
In this view of the matter the Tribunal was not justified in directing c
regularisation of the respondents as Mates.
Even though on principle we are in agreement with the submissions
of Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for Railway administra-
tion but having taken into account the fact that the respondents were D
directly appointed as Mate though on casual basis and having continuing
as such Mates for more than 22 to 25 years it will be wholly inequitable to
require them to be regularised against the post of Gangman in class IV. In
the premises, as aforesaid, we decline to interfere with the ultimate con-
clusion of the Tribunal on equitable ground, in the facts and circumstances
of the present case. The direction will not be treated as a precedent. . E
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. But there will be no order as
to costs.
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Railway service rules"Sign in to search