Substitute railway employees attain temporary status only after completing four months of continuous service.

The applicant was engaged as a Substitute Helper in the South Eastern Railway and joined her duties at Santragachi on February 21, 2013

From February 22, 2013, the very next day, she remained continuously absent from duty without authorized leave

The applicant claimed her absence was due to the medical conditions of her parents and submitted representations seeking a transfer to Kharagpur on compassionate grounds

The respondents directed her to report for duty within ten days, warning of termination for failure to comply

Upon her continued absence and failure to report, the respondents issued a notice dated November 14, 2014, terminating her services

The applicant challenged this termination and sought a direction for posting at Kharagpur

1. Whether the termination of the applicant’s engagement as a substitute helper due to unauthorized absence was legally sustainable

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to the rights and privileges of a temporary Railway employee, including the consideration for transfer, prior to completing four months of continuous service

The court primarily applied the policy governing the engagement of substitutes in the Railways, specifically RBE No. 137/2010 dated 18.10.2010

Under Clause 4.2 of this policy, substitute employees are granted the rights and privileges of temporary Railway employees only upon the attainment of "temporary status" after completing four months of continuous service

Furthermore, the policy defines "Substitutes" as persons engaged to fill urgent operational vacancies that cannot be left unattended without adversely affecting railway services

The Tribunal reasoned that because the applicant absented herself from duty the day after joining, she failed to complete the mandatory four months of continuous service required to attain temporary status

Consequently, her service remained purely temporary, and she could not legally claim the rights or privileges—such as transfer considerations—available to regularized or temporary status employees

Regarding the unauthorized absence, the Tribunal emphasized the definition of "Substitute" under RBE No. 137/2010, noting that railway operational duties are of an urgent nature and cannot remain unattended

While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's family difficulties, it held that personal inconvenience does not justify indefinite unauthorized absence in a critical establishment like the Railways

The court found that the respondents acted within the rules by terminating her engagement following her failure to respond to directions to resume duty

It ruled that the applicant had no right to claim transfer or temporary status benefits as she had not met the statutory service requirements

The Original Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit

No order as to costs was made