In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar, has quashed the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) dismissal of claims made by former railway casual labourers and directed the Union of India and North Central Railways to compensate the petitioners instead of granting regularization.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2005, when the North Central Railway issued a notification inviting ex-casual labourers to apply for screening to obtain regular employment status. The petitioners, including Ramesh Chandra Bari (since deceased) and 13 others, who had worked in broken spells for over 120 days, appeared for the screening test conducted between October 10, 2007, and November 6, 2007. However, only one candidate, Avinishi Prasad, was declared successful when results were first declared on December 10, 2007.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which initially ruled in their favor in 2011, directing the Railways to declare the results and grant regularization if successful. Despite multiple orders from both the CAT and the High Court, the Railways refused to implement the directives, prompting further legal battles.
Legal Issues Involved
The central issues before the court included:
1. Whether the petitioners were eligible for regularization under the Railway Board’s policy for ex-casual labourers.
2. Whether the Railways could deny regularization based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Uma Devi (2006), which restricted regularization of irregularly appointed workers.
3. Whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation of regularization following the earlier court orders.
4. The extent to which the Railways could delay execution of court orders and introduce fresh objections after an issue had attained finality.
The Court’s Ruling
Delivering the judgment, Justice Vikas Budhwar emphasized that the Railways could not reopen settled issues to deny the petitioners the benefits they were entitled to. The court noted:
“Once the objections regarding the eligibility of the petitioners were adjudicated and settled in their favor, the Railways had no authority to reintroduce the same objections to deny benefits.”
The Division Bench pointed out that the Railways had continuously changed its stance, first contesting the petitioners’ eligibility on grounds of age, later on their period of service, and ultimately questioning their suitability after declaring them unsuccessful in 2013. The court noted that no new grounds were raised by the Railways apart from those that had already been ruled upon.
Compensation Instead of Regularization
The High Court observed that, as of 2025, the petitioners were beyond the prescribed age for regularization, making reinstatement impractical. However, considering their prolonged litigation, the court directed a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh each to the petitioners and their legal heirs.
“Given the delay caused by the Railways’ non-compliance, it is only fair that the petitioners be compensated for the injustice they have suffered,” the court stated.
Legal Representation
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Aparna Burman, Birendra Kumar Mishra, and Diwan Saifullah Khan, while the respondents (Union of India and Railways) were represented by Advocates Dileep Kumar Pandey, Rajnish Kumar Rai, and Vivek Kumar Rai.
