Kishan S/O Punnusingh Punia And Others v. Union Of India, Through Its General Manager, Central Railway, C.S.T. Mumbai And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:1723-DB 1 8wp3048.2022..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3048 OF 2022 (Kishan s/o Punnusingh Punia and ors Vs. Union of India and ors) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.R. Ingole, Advocate for petitioners.

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATED : 21-02-2025 The claim of the petitioner, who was working as casual labour for regularization, on the ground that he has worked for 120 days on railway project has been rejected by the respondents, which came to be challenged before the CAT by way of Original Application No. 1610/2019 which came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 20.2.2019 (p24) which is questioned here. The rejection, is on the ground that the post of Safaiwala of Mechanical Deptt. in Nagpur Division has been surrendered in the year 2009 itself on account of which there is no vacancy available, apart from the fact that the petitioner was engaged to work on a casual basis and has worked for 10 to 14 days. There is nothing on record, pointed out to us to indicate that the said position, is incorrect factually. The requirement, according to the IREM, is engagement for a period of 120 days without any break which admittedly has not been fulfilled. We therefore, do not seen any reason to interfere. The petition dismissed. No costs.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Belkhede