Statutory age limits for regularization are binding, rendering over-age casual laborers ineligible for retrospective absorption.

The applicant was engaged as a casual labourer on May 24, 1981, and attained temporary status on September 29, 1981

He participated in a screening for regularization in 1987, but his name did not appear on the final panel dated November 25, 1987

His services were orally terminated on August 3, 1988

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), in an award dated April 30, 1993, ordered his reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits

After extensive litigation, including a High Court order in 2001 restoring the CGIT award, the applicant was reinstated on April 10, 2012, to the post and status he held as of August 3, 1988

The applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) in 2016, at age 58, seeking regularization from the date his juniors were regularized (1988) along with all consequential financial benefits

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective regularization from 1988 and consequential benefits despite failing the 1987 screening process.

2. Whether the applicant meets the eligibility criteria, specifically the age limits prescribed by the Railway Board, for regularization at the time of filing the OA.

The court applied the service rules formulated by the Railway Board under Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I, which grants the Board statutory authority to set service conditions for Group 'C' and 'D' staff

Railway Board Circulars dated July 25, 1991, and February 28, 2001, which fixed the upper age limit for the regularization of casual labour at 40 years for General candidates, 43 for OBC, and 45 for SC/ST

The Tribunal further relied on the precedent set in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar (Writ A No. 1006/2016), which held that if a candidate is over-age and has failed a screening committee test, the Tribunal cannot issue directives for absorption in contravention of existing rules

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s name was notably absent from the 1987 screening panel, indicating he had not qualified for regularization at the material time

Although the applicant was reinstated in 2012 following the CGIT award, the reinstatement order specifically restored him to the status he held in 1988; the applicant joined without challenging the lack of retrospective regularization or benefits in that 2012 order

The Tribunal noted that it does not function as an executing agency for CGIT awards

Applying the Railway Board’s age criteria, the Tribunal found that the applicant, being 58 years old at the time of filing in 2016, far exceeded the maximum age limit of 40/45 years required for regularization

Following the ratio in Ashok Kumar, the Tribunal reasoned that no positive directive for absorption can be issued when a candidate is over-age and has previously failed the screening process

The OA was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of

No order as to costs was made