RAM KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 02-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAM KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
DECEMBER 2, 1987 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Indian Railway Establishment Manual-Para 2511-Casual 
labour employed by Railway Administration-Engaged on construction 
and open line-Whether entitled to same pay-Regularisation and grant 
of temporary status to casual labour-Necessity for-Effective imple-
C mentation of provisions for protection of casual labour-Emphasised-
Retiral benefits-Admissibility of 
The petitioners, who were engaged on terms of casual labour for 
periods varying between 10 and 16 years in the Construction Depart-
ment of the Signal Unit in the Northern Railway, filed writ petitions in 
D this Court alleging that though they had put in continuous service for 
quite a long period, the Railway Administration-the respondent, had 
not treated them as temporary servants and had applied discriminatory 
rates of wages, and prayed for a direction to treat them at par with 
maintenance workers, and to declare that they were entitled to equal 
pay for equal work and absorpiion in the regular cadre in the 
E permanent category as per the circulars issued by the responde'1ts. 
The respondents in their counter affidavits contested the claim of 
the petitioners contending that out of the forty four petitioners, sixteen 
had been empanelled, five of whom had been given temporary appoint-
ments, eleven had refused to join and seventeen had been given 
F 
temporary status, and that by the Railway Board's directions on 
January 1, 1984, project casual labourers were now entitled to all 
privileges that were applicable to open line temporary railway servants, 
that temporary status will first be given in the cadre of Khallasis and 
then promotion to skilled category, after conducting trade test, and that 
the employees in the open line acquired temporary status on completion 
G of 120 days of service whereas such status was acquired by the casual 
labour in project work on completion of 360 days as formulated under 
orders of this Court. 
Disposing of the writ petitions, 
H 
HELD: Casual labour seems to be the requirement of the Railway 
138 
).. 
~-
+ 
RAM KUMAR v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.] 
139 
administration and cannot be avoided. The Railway Establishment 
A 
Manual has made provisions for their protection, but implementation is 
not effected. Several instructions were issued by the Railway Board and 
the Northern Railway Headquarters to remove the difficulties faced by 
the casual labour bnt there is slackness in enforcing them. T.his Court 
hopes and trusts that such an unfortunate situation will not arise again 
and in the event of any such allegation coming to the Court, the B 
Administration will have to be blamed. I ; 44F-G I 
No doubt, the petitioners have put in more than 360 days of 
service. But keeping the prevailing practice, distinction between the 
casual labour employed in the open line, and in the project line cannot 
be obliterated. I ;4 lD-FI 
The Railway Administration should take prompt steps to screen 
such of the petitioners who have not yet been tested for the purpose of 
regularising their services. I ; 44C] 
c 
The respondents are directed to consider the claims of the D 
petitioners promptly and make appropriate orders for their regulari-
sation. I ;440-E] 
The petitioners are entitled to the same pay as is admissible to 
others, either in the project or in the open line. Retiral benefit of 
pension is not admissible. I i44D, BI 
E 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 15863-15906 
of 1984. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
D.N. Goburdhan, D. Goburdhan, Ms. Gita Luthra and Ms. 
Pinky Anand for the Petitioners. 
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, Kuldeep Singh, 
Additional Solicitor General, C. Ramesh and Mrs. Sushma Suri for 
F 
the Respondents. 
G 
?-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. The petitioner in each of these 
applications under Article 32 of the Constitution is a workman 
engaged on terms of casual labour for periods varying between 10 H 
A 
B 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
and 16 years in the Construction Department of the Signal Unit in 
the Northern Railway. All the writ petitions having disposed of by a 
common judgment as questions of law and fact involved therein are 
similar. 
The petitioners alleged that notwithstanding the fact that each 
of them has put in continuous service for quite a long period, the 
Railway Administration, respondent 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.