Siya Saran @ Siya Sharan Paswan, v. The Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2633 of 2020 ====================================================== 1.
Siya Saran @ Siya Sharan Paswan, aged about 63 years, S/o Late Chhapan Paswan, Resident of Village-Kamuruddinpur, P.O.-Kamuruddinpur, P.S.- Muffasil, District-Begusarai.
2.
Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar, aged about 61 years, S/o Ram Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village-Bara Bimraha, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Alauli, DistrictKhagaria. 3.
Shankar @ Shankar Prasad, aged about 62 years, S/o Sita Ram Lal, Resident of Village-Mohammadpur, P.O. Bakhtiyarpur, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, DistrictPatna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi. 2.
The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali. 3.
The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shambhu Sharan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Anil Singh, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY) 04-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this case, the petitioners are seeking regularization in railway service, taking a plea that in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1985 PLJR (S.C.) 36 direction was given to regularize the services of the persons whose names are in the register maintained for the casual worker and regularized them phase-wise, whereupon, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2633 of 2020(2) dt.04-02-2020 2/2 screening was conducted on 3/21.08.1990 and the persons found qualified were regularized but, the petitioners could not be regularized. The petitioners have moved before the Tribunal after quite a long time in the year 2016. Presently, as per affidavit, the age of the petitioner no.1 is 63 years and rest of the petitioners have also attained the similar type of age. Thus, the question of regularization does not arise.
Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) ( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) rishi/- U