Facts
The applicants were unlicensed parcel handling porters at Barharwa Railway Station, working as casual laborers for three decades.
Source reference: p.5They initially filed a writ petition in the Kolkata High Court (CA No. 248 of 1991, CA No. 57 of 1993), which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as TA No. 22 of 1989.
Source reference: p.3-4The CAT disposed of this application on June 10, 1993, directing the Railways to screen the applicants for casual work.
Source reference: p.4The Railways rejected their claim for absorption on June 29, 1994, leading the applicants to file another application (OA No. 1005 of 1998).
Source reference: p.4This OA was disposed of on March 22, 2005, directing the Railways to regulate/consider the applicants' engagement and grant benefits within six months.
Source reference: p.4-5, 10The Railways challenged this order in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta (W.P.C.T. No. 518 of 2005), which, on March 27, 2007, affirmed the CAT's order regarding the casual parcel porters (applicants herein) and extended the compliance period by three months.
Source reference: p.5, 11The Railways further challenged this in the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 4467 of 2007), which dismissed the appeal on March 1, 2017, refusing to interfere with the High Court's order.
Source reference: p.5, 11-12Despite these judicial pronouncements, the applicants were only granted appointment on May 7, 2018, after screening on October 24, 2017.
Source reference: p.5, 6The present application sought antedated appointment and notional pay fixation from March 22, 2005.
Source reference: p.3Applicant nos. 9 and 10 were legal heirs representing deceased original applicants.
Source reference: p.2Issues
Whether the applicants are entitled to have their appointment antedated from the date of the Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 1005 of 1998 (March 22, 2005) or from the date of the Hon’ble High Court’s order in WPCT 518 of 2005 (March 27, 2007) or from the date of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in CA No. 4467 of 2007 (March 01, 2017)
Source reference: p.5, 10Whether the applicants will be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay.
Source reference: p.5, 12Law Applied
The court applied the principle that when an order of a lower judicial forum is affirmed by a superior court, particularly when no stay or interference was granted during the appellate process, the original order holds effect.
Source reference: p.6, 7, 12The doctrine of merger was implicitly invoked, as the affirmed original order of the Tribunal, as modified by the High Court regarding the time frame, remained the operative direction.
Source reference: p.8, 12The court cited *Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another* reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359 and *V. Senthur And Another Vs. M. Vijayakumar, IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Another* reported in (2022) 17 Supreme Court Cases 568 to support the application of the doctrine of merger.
Source reference: p.7-8It also referenced Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the application was filed.
Source reference: p.2Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that its original order of March 22, 2005, directing regularisation, had been affirmed by the High Court on March 27, 2007, and subsequently by the Supreme Court on March 1, 2017.
Source reference: p.5, 11-12The High Court had extended the compliance period by three months from its order date, making the deadline June 27, 2007.
Source reference: p.11-12The respondents, by appealing, dragged the litigation for years, but their appeals ultimately failed to overturn the original directive regarding the applicants.
Source reference: p.6Crucially, at no point was the Tribunal's or High Court's order regarding these applicants stayed or interfered with.
Source reference: p.7, 12Therefore, the benefits of the time consumed in litigation could not be claimed by the respondents to deny the applicants their rightful claim from the specified original date.
Source reference: p.12The applicants had a legitimate claim for screening and permanent appointment as per the judicial orders.
Source reference: p.7The argument of the respondents that benefits should only accrue from the May 2018 appointment date was rejected as this would violate the sanctity of the affirmed judicial orders.
Source reference: p.6, 12The court considered the applicants' common cause of action for joint prosecution under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, allowing it.
Source reference: p.3Holding
The Tribunal concluded that the applicants' appointment should be antedated from June 27, 2007.
The applicants are entitled to all consequential benefits, except the difference in wages for the period they did not actually work as regular employees.
Source reference: p.12The respondents were directed to implement this order within 90 days from the date of receiving a copy.
Source reference: p.12The O.A. was disposed of.
Source reference: p.13Original Court PDF
Anesh Shaik and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [p.1]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in