Central Administrative Tribunal - ErnakulamMasanamuthu vs Union Of India on 15 November, 2010CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                           ERNAKULAM BENCH

                Original Application. No. 676 OF 2009
                                 With
             Miscellaneous Application. No. 923 OF 2009


              Monday, this the 15th day of November, 2010.
CORAM:

  HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
  HON'BLE Dr. K.B. SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.   Masanamuthu,
     S/o. Iyyamperumal,Karandhaneri Post,
     Nanguneri Taluk, Thirunelveli District.

2    D. Jayaraj,
     S/o. Duraisamy Nadar, Thalaikulam,
     Karandhaneri Post, Nanguneri Taluk,
     Thirunelveli District.

3.   Murugesan,
     S/o. Issakimuthu, 156, Muthalikulam,
     Middle street, Panangulam Post,
     Nanguneri Taluk, Thirunelveli District.

4.   S. Arumugam,
     S/o. Subbiah Nadar,
     Muthalikulam, Panangulam Post,
     Nanguneri Taluk, Thirunelveli District.

5.   M. Palani,
     S/o. Mayamuthu Nadar, Post Office Street,
     Melamavadi Post, Nanguneri Taluk,
     Thirunelveli District.                       ... Applicants

(By Advocate M/s. Shaji & Renu)

                  Versus
1.   Union of India
     Represented by its General Manager,
     Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
     Park town (P.O.), Chennai - 3

2.   The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
     Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division,
     Trivandrum                                ...   Respondents

(By Advocate Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil).

      The application having been heard on 09.11.2010, the Tribunal on

15,11.10 delivered the following:


                                 O R D E RHON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER



      This O.A. has been filed by the applicants for a direction to the

respondents to consider them for regular absorption in the existing vacancy

in the Southern Railway without applying the age limit subject to medical

fitness and other conditions.2.    The applicants hailing from Thirunelveli, had worked as Casual

Labourers during 1980 and 1981 under the Trivandrum sub division of

Southern Railway. When they were sent out of service, they went back to

Thirunelveli.  They had made a number of representations for their

absorption and reinstatement but to no avail. They claim that they are

covered by the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 271/2006 and connected

cases.3.    The applicants had filed M.A. No. 923/2009 for condonation of delay

of 730 days in filing the O.A. The main ground for condonation of delay is

that they were in Thirunelveli and came to know of the order of this Tribunal

in OA No. 271/2006 and connected cases only in the month of August,

2009, and immediately approached this Tribunal.4.    The respondents contested the M.A. on the following grounds. The

M.A. does not give the details of the delay worked out duly explaining the

reasons for and and every day. The applicants have not explained as to

from which date the delay has been worked out. The applicants No. 2 to 4

have not registered their names before the target date of 31.03.1987 for

inclusion of their names in the supplementary list, fixed by the Apex Court

in the case of DREU vs. General Manager, Southern Railway & Others,

AIR 1987 SC 1153.         This Tribunal in a number of cases dismissed the

claims of such retrenched Casual Labourers who failed to register their

names prior to 31.03.1987.      The applicants No. 1 and 5 have submitted

that their names are not in the merged seniority list published in 1997 in

pursuance of the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1706/1994. They have

not challenged the non-inclusion of their names in the said list. The

seniority list was published in the year 1997 and 12 years have passed

since then. Thus, there is a delay of 4370 days in filing the O.A. and there

is no convincing reason for the long delay in agitating the matter. The

applicants in this O.A. are not alert in the matter and for this reason the

M.A is not maintainable. Therefore, the M.A. as well as the O.A. are liable

to be dismissed.5.    Arguments were heard and documents perused.6.    The applicants have filed this O.A. on the ground that they are

covered by the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 271/2006 and connected

cases. The M.A. for condonation of delay in filing the O.A. has to be

considered, first, to find out whether the O.A. is maintainable.7.    The applicants have served in the Southern Railway during 1980 and

1981.   The O.A. and the M.A. are lacking in details.       No convincing

explanations were given as to why the applicants did not approach this

Tribunal in time. The delay itself deprives the applicants of the remedy

available in law as for the last so many years the applicants have not

produced any documents to the respondents to verify the eligibility of the

applicants for consideration for absorption in the Southern Railway.InRatam Chandra Sammanta and Others vs. Union of India and Others,

JT 1993 (3) SC 418, the Apex Court held as under :"6.    Two questions arise, one, if the petitioners are
           entitled as a matter of law for reemployment and other if
           they have lost their right, if any, due to delay. Right of
           casual labourer employed in projects, to be reemployed in
           railways has been recognized both by the Railways and this
           Court. But unfortunately the petitioners did not take any
           step to enforce their claim before the Railways except
           sending a vague representation nor did they even care to
           produce any material to satisfy this Court that they were
           covered in the scheme framed by the Railways. It was
           urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that they
           may be permitted to produce their identify cards etc.,
           before opposite    parties who may accept or reject the
           same after verification. We are afraid it would be too
           dangerous to permit this exercise. A writ is issued by this
           Court in favour of a person who has some right. And not
           for sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for maneuvering.
           Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available is
           law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any
           legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of
           time    loses his right   as   well.   From the date of
           retrenchment if it is assumed to be correct a period of
           more than 15 years has expired and in case we accept the
           prayer of    petitioner we would be depriving a host of
           others who in the meantime have become eligible and are
           entitled to claim to be employed. We would have been

             persuaded to take a sympathetic view but in absence of any
             positive material to establish that these Petitioners were
             in fact appointed and working as alleged by them it would
             not be proper exercise of discretion to direct opposite
             parties to verify the correctness of the statement made
             by the petitioners that they were employed between 1964
             to 1969 and retrenched between 1975 to 1979.7.   The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed.
             But there shall be no orders as to costs."In the instant case, it is not known how long the applicants worked as

casual labourers and whether they are eligible to be considered at par with

the applicants in O.A. 271/2006 and connected cases. It is also not known

when they were sent out of service.8.     In the light of the decision of the Apex Court as shown above, the

M.A. is disallowed for lack of convincing reasons for condoning the long

delay in filing the O.A. The O.A. deserves to be dismissed on the ground

of limitation alone. Ordered accordingly. No costs.(Dated, the 15th November, 2010)




  Dr. K.B. SURESH                                  K. GEORGE JOSEPH
 JUDICIAL MEMBER                                ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER




CVR.