top of page


MRS. VINOD v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, W.P.(C) 2432/2013 – 19th November, 2019

CORAM: Two judge bench comprising of JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR & JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH. It was being Held that, A MBC (Mobile Booking Clerk) after completing three years of service in that position after 1st September, 1996 is to be regularised and that there shall be no order to costs.

The BRIEF FACTS of this case are – The Railway board had brought forth a new scheme on 20th July, 1973. The purpose of this scheme is to employ the wards/sons/daughters. The petitioner worked both in the office of the Chief Booking Supervisor & Reservation Office as a typist in Amritsar from 30th April, 1985 to 14th May, 1985, under the zone, Mobile Booking Clerk (MBC). After Nov 17th 1986, final orders of withdrawing MBC’s were withdrawn. She approached the CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal) where they held MBCs working prior to 1986 are to be re engaged & after completing three years of service, they should be regularised and absorbed in accordance with the circular dated and issued on 21st April, 1982. So, in accordance to the above orders, the petitioner was re engaged in the Jalandhar Cantonment & after being declared medically fit by passing a test after four months of cantonment, she was given the temporary status with all the benefits & on 1st September, 1996, she completed her three years of service, yet was not regularised, plus in spite of being called by the DRM (Divisional Railway Manager), was not allowed to take up the written exam too, along with the other 44 MBCs. She filed a petition, claiming to be regularised for her three years of service, on par with the other 44 MBCs, whose services had been regularised.

The question arose in the case is ‘Whether the petitioner’s plea for the regularisation of her services as a MBC (Mobile Booking Clerk), is to be up held or not, with retrospective effect & re fixation of her seniority?’

The petitioner contends that she has a legal right to seek regularisation and absorption and also claims that her treatment regarding to the regularisation of services is quite discriminatory, arbitrary and leads to gross injustice. The advocate representing the petitioner also stated that it is unjust that the respondents have no satisfactory ground to delay four more years in regularising her services and giving her consequential benefits spite of the verdict which was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal

Based upon the verdict of Sheela Rani Case, the advocate who represented the respondent contended that retrospective regularization cannot be allowed since it would also lead to upsetting of the seniority and therefore the claims of the petitioner cannot be held to be acceptable.

On 19th November, 2010, the Central Administrative tribunal (CAT) had observed that the scheme relating to the Mobile Booking Clerk (MBC) Zone had been implemented by reducing the standards that ought to be given when it comes to statutory rules & laws.

When the case appeared in front of the Supreme Court, they observed that whether the petitioner is entitled to the legal right or not, yet they have the legal right to claim and fight for the right to regularise their services and absorption too.

The Supreme Court also observed that the petitioner had completed her three years of service as on 1st September, 1996 in conform to the rules which had been laid out by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Central Administrative Tribunal held that the Mobile Booking Clerks (MBCs) who so ever had been hired and had worked before the year 1986 are to be re employed into the same zone and they should have at least completed three years of regular service.

The Supreme Court, upon careful examination and properly covering all of the rules passed by the Board of railways held the Railways no longer have the power to subject the poor petitioner to discriminatory treatment when it comes to the regularisation of her services & she fits into all of the instructions which has been put forth and laid down upon by the Railway Board.

Therefore, the final verdict of the Supreme Court was that the impugned orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated, 19th November, 2010 in OA No. 2165/2009 & 19th April, 2012, in RA No. 19/2011 are hereby set aside. The Petitioner henceforth shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, plus an order has been issued to the respondents to ensure the regularisation & absorption of her services. There shall also be no order as to costs.

View/Download Judgment: MRS. VINOD v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

– Nardhana Ram



bottom of page