Over-aged ex-casual railway labourers are entitled to ₹8 lakh compensation instead of appointment.

The 17 applicants were former casual labourers engaged under the Railway construction and other organisations between 1978–81 and thereafter.

They were called for screening tests conducted in 2008, but were declared unsuitable in the result published on 25 March 2010, principally on the ground of being overaged.

The applicants alleged that similarly situated ex-casual labourers, including persons junior to them in the labour registers, had subsequently been granted age relaxation and appointments pursuant to orders dated 11 September 2018, 22 November 2018 and 7 December 2018.

They sought age relaxation, appointment, seniority and consequential service benefits from 1 April 1999.

During the proceedings, they relied on Ramesh Chandra Bari v. Union of India, Writ-A No. 11282 of 2018, decided by the Allahabad High Court, and the Supreme Court’s decision in SLP (C) No. 22533 of 2025, where compensation was awarded to similarly situated casual labourers in lieu of reinstatement.

The respondents contended that the applicants had not challenged the screening result and that their cases were distinguishable; they also relied on Jagdish v. Union of India, O.A. No. 31 of 2019.

1. Whether the applicants, having participated in the 2008 screening test and been declared unsuitable on account of age, were entitled to appointment, age relaxation, seniority and consequential service benefits.

2. Whether, in view of the applicants having crossed the age of superannuation, compensation could be granted in lieu of appointment or reinstatement by applying the principles in Ramesh Chandra Bari and the subsequent Supreme Court decision.

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000 each.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that where a court has already adjudicated the eligibility of ex-casual labourers for screening and the Railway has been directed only to declare the screening result, the Railway cannot reopen or rely upon the same objections previously rejected.

The Tribunal relied on the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Ramesh Chandra Bari v. Union of India, which held that, although ex-casual labourers do not possess an indefeasible right to regularisation or temporary status, compensation may be granted in lieu of reinstatement where their eligibility had been judicially recognised, they had remained out of employment for decades, and appointment was no longer practical because they had crossed the prescribed age.

It further applied the Supreme Court’s order in SLP (C) No. 22533 of 2025, which enhanced the compensation in that matter from ₹5,00,000 to ₹8,00,000 per applicant.

The Tribunal distinguished the principle in Jagdish, where regularisation had been denied, on the basis that the applicants were entitled to relief under the later and more directly applicable Ramesh Chandra Bari line of decisions.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had participated in the Railway’s screening process and had been declared unsuitable primarily because of age.

Their present ages showed that all of them had crossed the age of superannuation, making appointment, reinstatement or the grant of regular status impracticable.

Applying Ramesh Chandra Bari, the Tribunal treated compensation as an appropriate substitute for the employment-related relief claimed, particularly because similarly situated ex-casual labourers had received such relief and the applicants’ cases arose from the same screening-related controversy.

Although the respondents relied on Jagdish and argued that the applicants had not independently challenged the screening result, the Tribunal held that the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the later precedents concerning similarly situated workers.

Since the Supreme Court had fixed compensation at ₹8,00,000 in the comparable matter, the Tribunal adopted the same amount for each applicant.

The Tribunal declined to grant appointment or service seniority but directed the competent Railway authority to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 to each of the 17 applicants.

The amount was to be credited directly to the applicants’ bank accounts within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order, with bank particulars to be supplied within ten days.

Delayed payment would carry simple interest at 6% per annum until realisation.

All connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.