COURT DIRECTS CONSIDERATION OF PORTERS' REPRESENTATION FOR CLASS IV APPOINTMENT UNDER RAILWAY BOARD CIRCULAR.

The applicants are licensed Coolies/Porters at Varanasi Cantt. Railway Station, holding valid licenses inherited from their parents or relatives.

They have been performing porter services for several years and have regularly paid license fees.

They claim eligibility for appointment as Gangman/Class-IV employees based on Railway Board Circular dated April 1, 2008, which made porters aged 18-50 eligible for such posts.

They also refer to Commercial Circular No. 62/2009 dated October 29, 2009, which facilitated batch transfers for porters over 50 or medically unfit.

The applicants assert they were assured consideration for appointment after these batch transfers.

Despite submitting multiple representations, including those dated November 4, 2015, and May 5, 2016, no action was taken by the respondents.

Aggrieved by the lack of response, the applicants filed the Original Application seeking appropriate directions.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants' claim for appointment as Class IV/Gangman in light of Railway Board Circular R.B.E. No. 5/2008 dated April 1, 2008, and other benefits.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants' pending representations by a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

The primary legal framework referred to is the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under Section 19, which governs the filing of Original Applications seeking relief.

The applicants' claims are based on Railway Board Circular R.B.E. No. 5/2008 dated April 1, 2008, concerning the eligibility of porters for appointment as Gangman/Class-IV employees, and Commercial Circular No. 62/2009 dated October 29, 2009, related to the transfer of licenses.

The Court's decision to direct consideration of the representation follows the general principle of administrative law that public authorities must decide pending representations by passing reasoned orders.

The applicants sought a direction for their consideration for Class IV/Gangman positions and for a decision on their pending representations.

The applicants' counsel requested that the Original Application be disposed of by granting only the second relief, which is a direction to the competent authority to consider the pending representation in light of R.B.E. No. 15 of 2008 dated Apirl 1, 2008.

The respondents' counsel opposed the submission and contended that while appropriate action should be taken on the representation, the case lacked merit and should be dismissed on grounds of delay and merits.

However, the Tribunal, considering the relief sought by the applicants, decided to direct the respondent/competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation dated November 30, 2019, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not examined the delay, laches, or merits of the applicants’ claim, leaving all such points open for consideration by the respondents.

This indicates the court's focus was on ensuring the administrative process of representation review was followed.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not examined the delay, laches, or merits of the applicants' claim, and all points remained open for consideration by the respondents.

No order was made as to costs.