1996 INSC 1551
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                   Ramesh Kumar

                                                           Vs.

                                                    Union of India

                                               C.A.No.14581 of 1996

                                    (K. Ramaswamy and G. B. Pattanaik JJ.)

                                                      28.10.1996

                                                       ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New
Delhi made on 17-5-1990 in O. A . No. 1201/87.

4. The primary contention of the appellant which prima facie appeals us is that since the appellant
was a casual worker and had attained the temporary status, throwing him out of service while his
junior was retained, is an arbitrary action. We gave notice to the respondents by order dated April
30, 1996 directing them to explain as under :
" Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Annexure AA to the SLP paper book and stated
that the petitioner was engaged as Choukidar on January 13, 1986 and he was conferred temporary
status on January 8, 1967. One Rohtas Kumar son of Ganpat Ram was also engaged as Choukidar
with effect from February 28, 1986 and he was conferred temporary status on February 23, 1987
and both of them have been given medical fit under Category C.I. It is also stated that Rohtas
Kumar had already been regularised after the schemes was wound up while the petitioner being the
senior was entitled for regularisation or posting elsewhere."

5. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Ved Prakash, Divisional Personnel Officer of
the Northern Railway, New Delhi, in Paragraph 7 at Page 44 it is stated is under :

"In reply to paragraph 4(c) I say that Central Organisation for Operations and Information System is
separate and distinct entity from Northern Railways. In view of Annexure-'A' the applicant's
services come to an end on 10-9-1987 on account of winding up of the organisation. It is submitted
that most of the staff was absorbed by the centre for Railway Information System (CRIS). A list of
20 Casual Labours who could not be absorbed under Respondent No. 4, was forwarded to the Chief
Engineer Construction Northern Railway Kashmere Gate Delhi by COIS for re-engagement
provided there was requirement for work.. It is respectfully submitted that about seven casual
labours, including Shri Rohtas Kumar s/o Shri Ganpat Ram were spared as per requirement and
accordingly they were offered appointment by the construction department. It is further submitted
that after winding up the organisation, the applications from the willing staff were invited by the
respondent No. 4 if they wanted appointment in center for Information system. It appears that the
petitioner never applied for appointment and as such he was not considered for appointment."

6. The Central Organisation for Operations and Information System is separate and distinct entity
from Northern Railways. In view of Annexure- 'A', the applicant's services came to an end on 10-9-
1987 on account of winding up if the said organisation. However, 20 casual workers were directed
to be absorbed at different places. It was stated that though opportunity was given to all the persons
to make an application for absorption, since the appellant had not opted for appointment, he was not
considered for appointment. In view of the fact that he was given an opportunity but he had not
availed of the same, the question of discrimination does not arise; nor the question of appointment
of the junior and denial thereafter to the appellant does not arise.

7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Appeal dismissed.