Dewendra Tiwari vs Union Of India And Ors

D.N. Patel, J.

This writ petition has been preferred by the original applicant of O.A. No. 595 of 1999(R). As the O.A. No. 595 of 1999(R) was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi vide order dated 20th October, 2010, the original applicant has present the present writ petition.

Reasons:

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Central Administrative Tribunal has observed in paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, which read as under:

"22. As the applicant was a substitute with temporary status though his services was not regularized, he was clothed with all the rights and privileges as are admissible to temporary employee as per Para 1515 of the IREM 1989 and in view of Para 1502 of the IREM, he was entitled to notice before termination of service and for removal or dismissal for misconduct, disciplinary proceeding under D&A rules was required. Obviously, till his termination, removal or dismissal, he was entitled to remain in service and for that was entitled to posting.

The case of the respondents is that on receipt of the representation dated 29.01.1998 of the applicant for posting (Annexure-A/5), his case was processed, and on consideration of non-satisfactory working particulars, his name was deleted from 17.11.1998. The respondents in support of this have filed Annexure- R/1 regarding performance of the applicant. But that document does not show that the service of the applicant was terminated and his name was deleted. It appears from the record that the respondents were directed to produce the order deleting the name, but they could not produce any such document (vide order sheet dated 16.09.1910). The case of the applicant also is that no notice was served on him for termination of his services. In view of the Railway Board's rule provided in Para 1502 of IREM, the service of the applicant could also not be terminated without notice.

Hence, it is clear that the services of the applicant was not terminated. So, when the applicant is continuing in service, he is entitled to work and get salary.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to arrange the posting of the applicant against the vacancy of Group 'D' post within a month from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The applicant, however, would not get any back-wages, and the respondents would be at liberty to take action against the applicant as per rule with regard to his previous performance.

With the above directions, the OA stands disposed of. No costs." (Emphasis supplied)

It appears that this petitioner was appointed as Volunteer Ticket Collector and he was always in search of absorption into the services. In fact, the services of the appellant were never terminated and never termination order has been brought on record, as per the observations made by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is also observed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in its impugned order that this writ petitioner was declared as substitute with temporary status by virtue of an order passed in O.A. No. 595 of 1999(R). Thus, no error has been committed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in giving direction to the respondents to assign the work to this petitioner without any back-wages. In fact, there is no legal right vested in this petitioner to get the work because he was never regularly appointed employee of the respondents. Temporary or ad-hoc or substituted worker cannot get salary. The word "regular salary" goes with the word "regular appointment". It appears that there is no regular appointment of this petitioner with the respondent-Railway authority. It also appears that this petitioner is a substituted or temporary or daily worker. Thus, no error has been committed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in deciding O.A. No. 595 of 1999(R) vide order dated 20th October, 2010. Hence, there is no substance in this writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

The respondent-Railway authority cannot give appointment as a back door entry for any public post, including for Class-IV post, there is bound to be public advertisement and public at large must be given an opportunity to compete with each other. The back door entrant should go out by same entry meaning thereby to, those who are illegally appointed, their services can be terminated without any notice or without any reason. Illegal appointees should be ready to go home on any day without any notice or without any reason. Neither the Court nor the justice delivery system is meant for illegal appointees.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.