RATAN CHANDRA SAMMANTA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 13-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
RATAN CHANDRA SAMMANTA AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
[A.1\1. AHMADI AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
. MAY 13, 1993 
Retrencllment-Re-employmem under a scllemeframed under directions of 
tlle Court-Representations vague, and delayed. 
A 
B 
The petitioners claimed to be casual labourers of the South Eastern c 
Railway ap.pointed between 1964-69 and retrenched between 1975-78. 
They prayed 
(1) for inclusion of their names in the live casual register and re-
D 
employment according to their seniority, and 
'. 
(2) for restraining the fdling of vacancies from the open market. 
They relied on two circulars issued by the Railway Board laying down 
guidelines for the recruitment, retrenchment and employment of casual E 
labourers. They also relied on two judgments of this court in 1985 and 1987 
which directed the preparation of a scheme and absorption of casual labourers 
in accordance with their scheme. 
A scheme was. framed in 1987 for employing casual labourers re· F 
trenched before 1981 subject to demonstrating suitability before 31st March, 
1987. 
In 1990 the petitioners made their representation to be considered. 
The questions before this .court were-
(a)· whether the petitioners were entided as a matter of law to re-
employment and 
(b) if they had lost their right, ifany, due to delay. 
751 
G 
H 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the petitions, this court, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD·l. Right of casual labourers employed in projects to be re· 
employed in railways has been recognised both by the Railways and this 
Court. But the petitioners onl~· sent in a vague representation, and there was 
absence of positive material that they were in fact appointed and working as 
claimed. (754-G) 
2. A writ is issued by this court in favour of a person who has some right 
and not for the sake of a roving enquiry leaving scope for manoeuver. 
3. Delay itself deprives a person of his· remedy available in law. In the 
absence of any fresh cause of action of any legislation, a person who has lost 
his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well. (755-A) 
4. In any event, more than 15 years have expired, and a host of others 
who have in the meantime become eligible and entitled to claim to be 
employed would be deprh•ed iftbe petitioners' claim were accepted. (755-B) 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 71 of 1992. 
WITH 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 323 of 1993. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
J.P. Bhatacharjee, N.R. Choudhry and Somnath Mukherjee for the Petition-
... , 
. ' 
F 
ers in W.P.No. 71193. · · 
' 
G 
H 
S.N. Mukherjee for the Petitioners in W.P, No. 323/93. 
Ms. B. Sunita Rao for V.K. Verma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M.SAHAI, J. Casual labourers of South Eastern Railway, alleged to have 
been appointed between 1964-69 and retrenched between 1975-78 have ap-
proached this Coun for a direction to opposite parties to include their names in the 
---
--· 
l.. 
RA TAN CHANDRA v. U.0.1 [R.M. SAHAI, .I) 
753 
live casual labourer register after due screening and give them re-employment A 
according to their seniority. Further prayer is to restrain the opposite parties from 
filling vacancies, from open market. 
Basis of their claim is two fold, one-circulars issued by the Railway Board 
on 8th June and 18th June, 1981 laying guidelined regarding recruitment, retrench-
B 
ment and employment of the casual labourers; second-Judgments delivered by this 
Court in 1985 and 1987 directing the opposite parties to prepare a scheme and 
absorb the casual labourers in accordance with their seniority. 
Issuing of circulars by the Railway Board or decisions by this Court could 
not and has not been disputed. Nor it is disputed that in pursuance of the orders C 
passed by this Court the opposite parties framed a scheme in 1987 for employing 
retrenched casual labourers. On 2.3. 1987 a letter was issued from the Railway 
Establishment addressed to the General Managers for employing casual labourer 
retrenched before 198 l if they satisfied the requirements mentioned therein which 
is extracted below : 
D 
"Pursuant to directions given.by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 
in their order dated 23.2.1987, in W.P. No. 332of 1986, the Ministry 
desire that the cases of project casual labour who had worked as 
such before 1.1.81 and who were discharged due to completion of 
work or for want of further work, may also be considered for the E 
purpose of implemen

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