Railways cannot screen out commission vendors entitled to regularisation under its 1976 policy, Delhi High Court holds

The respondents were commission-based bearers and vendors working with the North Eastern Railway and sought regularisation of their services.

The Railway Board’s Circular dated 13 December 1976 directed that commission bearers and vendors be registered according to length of service and progressively absorbed against regular vacancies.

In Mahesh v. Union of India , the Supreme Court directed completion of the regularisation process and absorption of eligible vendors in accordance with the rules.

In South Eastern Railway Congress v. Chairman, Railway Board , the Supreme Court further directed that commission vendors and bearers be absorbed against available vacancies and, pending absorption, be paid the minimum of the revised pay scale with applicable allowances.

A similar direction was issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1768/1999.

The Railway Board subsequently issued a Circular dated 1 December 2005 directing immediate regularisation of commission vendors and bearers, with complete relaxation of educational qualifications.

The respondents thereafter filed OA Nos. 4140/2013 and 173/2014.

By judgment dated 7 November 2016, the Tribunal directed their regularisation within 90 days, payment of minimum pay-scale benefits with allowances from 14 November 2000, and payment of costs of ₹1 lakh.

The Union of India’s review application was dismissed, leading to the present writ petitions.

The High Court noted that the Railways had not substantiated its claim that several respondents had already been absorbed or regularised.

The Court applied the Railway Board’s Circular dated 13 December 1976, which contemplated progressive absorption of commission-based bearers and vendors against regular vacancies.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in Mahesh v. Union of India and South Eastern Railway Congress v. Chairman, Railway Board , requiring implementation of the absorption policy and payment of minimum regular pay-scale benefits pending absorption.

The Court also considered the Railway Board’s Circular dated 1 December 2005, directing regularisation with relaxation of educational qualifications.

In addition, relying on Jaggo v. Union of India , Shripal v. Nagar Nigam , Vinod Kumar v. Union of India , Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. , Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand , and the Delhi High Court decisions in Pawan Sharma , New Delhi Municipal Council v. Kalpana Sharma and Om Prakash Gaur v. Delhi Technological University , the Court applied the principle that long-serving employees selected through a process resembling regular recruitment and performing essential, perennial duties may acquire a substantive right to regularisation, provided their appointments were not illegal, mala fide, surreptitious or back-door appointments.

The Court further applied the constitutional obligations of judicial discipline under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution, requiring subordinate courts and authorities to give effect to binding Supreme Court decisions.

The Court held that the respondents fell within the class of commission bearers and vendors covered by the Supreme Court’s directions and the Railway Board’s 1976 policy; this position was not disputed by the Railways.

Their entitlement to regularisation had therefore already crystallised, and the Railways could not subsequently employ screening to exclude them from absorption.

The Court found that the Railways’ reliance on screening results, non-screening, or alleged prior absorption was inconsistent with the binding directions and was unsupported by reliable evidence.

Although the Railways asserted that some respondents had been regularised in Group ‘D’ posts, it failed to file the affidavit directed by the Court to establish the benefits actually granted to them.

Applying the principles from the later Supreme Court regularisation cases, the Court concluded that the respondents’ prolonged service in essential railway catering and vending functions strengthened, rather than weakened, their claim to regularisation.

The Tribunal’s directions were therefore found to be legally justified.

Compliance with the Tribunal’s order, including payment of costs, was directed within four weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to revive and conclude the pending contempt proceedings if the Railways failed to comply.