The Railway Department is the largest public sector undertaking in India, which has been regulated by different parliamentary statutes. The Railways, in order to be regulated, come within the purview of states, as provided in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Being representative of the Union of India, it is expected from railways that it and its employees are to work with extreme sincerity and utmost cautious. Since the enactment of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, as a general belief, all claim cases pertaining to the death and injury of the passengers due to railway accidents can be filed and decided by the Railway Claims Tribunals set up under the said Act of 1987. In 1990, the Central Government formulated the Railway Accidents (compensation) Rules, 1990, which prescribes the maximum limit of compensation payable under Section 124 and Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989. As per the amended provisions, the maximum compensation of Rs. Four Lakh and interest thereupon can be availed by exercising the aforesaid remedy under the said Act of 1987.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides remedies in cases of deficiencies in the service provided to consumers. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directs that the provisions thereof shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of other laws for the time being in force. Obviously, in a case of deficiency in services provided by Railways, a complaint can be filed before District Consumer Forum or other authorities under the aforementioned Act of 1986.

In this regard, Section 128 of the Railways Act, 1989, provides for an alternative remedy option to the claimant and says that the right of any person to claim compensation under Section 124 shall not affect the rights of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, or any other law for time being in force; but no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident.

Recently, In the case of Smt. Nirmal Devi Chopra vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Railway Board, and Others (Original Petition No. 72 of 2001, decided on 16.09.2013), the National Consumer Dispute Commission (“NCDC”) awarded the claimant the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (in words, ten lakhs) and directed that the amount be paid within 90 days, otherwise it will carry interest@9% p.a. till its realization.

The brief facts of the case: one Mr. R. C. Chopra died while he was travelling in Lucknow Mail, in the night falling between 21st -22nd December, 1998, due to deficiency in the services and for non-compliance of the rules on the part of the administration and employees of the Northern Railways as well as the doctors and staff of Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi. On 23.12.1998, it was found that Mr. Chopra was admitted as unidentified and unconscious patient in the above-said hospital at 11.25 am by Delhi Railway Police on 22.12.1998. He was identified by his son-in-law later. Mr. Chopra passed away on 24.12.1998 without re-gaining his consciousness. The cause of his death was shown as unknown poisoning and pontine haemorrhage. The autopsy report mentioned the cause of death due to Nitrazepam and acute adverse effects thereof. Subsequently, it also came to the light that Mr. Chopra was robbed in the train; his cash and demand-drafts looted away from him. His luggage was delivered in an open condition to his family by the Delhi Railway Police. Only few documents were found in his brief-case.

The main grouse of the complainant was that no medical aid was given to the patient on his way to the hospital. The train halted at Ghaziabad Station for over an hour for this purpose and no steps were taken to prevent his death. A memo was also given but the Railway DMO or any other doctor did not attend the patient. Improper and inadequate medical aid was given at the aforesaid hospital in New Delhi.

During the prosecution of the complaint, it was also found that one Mr. H. M. Behal, along-with his wife and son, was to travel from Lucknow to Delhi. He held reserved accommodation for three persons. However, due to thick and foggy weather, he abandoned his plan to travel by this train and got refund for his tickets. Their tickets were treated as ‘non-issued’ by the Reservation Office at Lucknow and were re-sold in an unauthorized manner to certain unidentified individuals. It is anticipated that such unidentified individuals were travelling in the train while working in cahootswith the reservation staff and the TTE and they only robbed off Mr. Chopra of his cash and demand-drafts. These miscreants gave tea containing Nitrazepam to Mr. Chopra, which induced him to deep sleep. After their arrival, in New Delhi, the TTE and the Coach Attendant left the patient in lurch. They did not swing into action. No medical assistance was given to Mr. Chopra. No ambulance or doctors were arranged by the railway authorities at the Delhi Railway Station. The empty rack of the train was shunted into the railway yard and washing lines, from where Mr. Chopra was carried in a luggage trolley to the Hospital by the GRP, New Delhi at 11.30 hrs. The railway authorities did not make any attempt to identify those three miscreants. Their identity was never established.

The case facts show how irresponsible and inhuman treatment can be faced during train journeys. The pronouncement of such a huge amount of compensation by the NCDC is a landmark against cases of gross negligence and irresponsible behaviours of government authorities.

Under Service Jurisprudence, the appointment, regularization and fixation of the pay of daily wager employees have been blazing issues. In the context of daily wager employees of universities or colleges in  Madhya Pradesh, the following questions under service laws are analysed and answered herein: –

1. Whether the Madhya Pradesh Daily Wages Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 / Madhya Pradesh Dainik Vetanbhogee Karmacharee (Seva kee Sharten) Niyam, 2013, (herein after called “the Rules”) are also applicable to the daily wages employees of the university and colleges in Madhya Pradesh;
2. Whether daily wagers of the said universities and colleges, who are recruited without following legal procedure and appointed against no-post, are entitled for benefits under the Rules; and
3. Whether daily wages of the said universities and colleges, who are recruited without following legal procedure and appointed against no-post, are entitled for regularization under any service rules.

With reference to question no. 1 above, the legal preposition along with reasoning is as follows:

• The Governor of Madhya Pradesh invoking the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India formulated the Rules. Rule 2(b) defines “Employees” the daily wages employees working in the different departments of State Government of Madhya Pradesh.
• The daily wagers of universities and colleges are not the employees of the departments of MP State Government. Unless the Rules are adopted by a particular university or college by an official notification, such Rules will not be applicable to the daily wagers of that university or college.

With reference to question no. 2, the legal preposition along with reasoning is as follows:

• Even if the Rules are adopted by a college or university, the daily wagers of that college or university, who are recruited without following legal procedure and appointed against no sanctioned posts, shall not be entitled for any benefit under Rules 7, 8 and 9, as such benefits are made available only to regular daily wagers. The employees whose services are totally illegal in law cannot be equated with the employees who are recruited as par standard norms and procedure of law. The Rules are promulgated to waive the legal requirements of law, and are not created to legalize the services of illegally appointed persons.
• In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the daily wager employees, whose appointments are illegal, are not to be entitled for regularization. Relying on the same, the General Administration Department of M.P., vide its Circular No. F.5-3/2006/1/3 dated 16.5.2007, issued directions that illegal appointments means the appointment made without any sanctioned post. The employees of the colleges, who are recruited against no posts, cannot claim for all benefits under the Rules.
• In this context, the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal & Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 1193) (Para 8) is also relevant, which laid down:

Mere continuation of service by any temporary or ad hoc or daily wage employee, under the cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be litigious employment. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

With reference to question no. 3, the legal preposition along with reasoning is as follows:

• The Government of M.P., vide its Circular No. F.5-3/2006/1/3 dated 08.02.2008, also clarified that employees, who are recruited against no post, cannot claim regularization. Therefore, the employees of a college or university, who are recruited against no post, cannot claim regularization.
• In the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006(4) SCC 1; AIR 2006 SC 806; 2006 AIR SCW 1991), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the  temporary or casual labourers cannot claim a regularization as illegal appointees. It is also pertinent to note that in the case of Gaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. [(2008) 4 SCC 261; AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1334] and Management, the Assistant Salt Commissioner v. Secretary, Central Salt Mazdoor Union [JT 2008(2) SC 469; 2008 AIR SCW 1443], it was founded that any recruitment that dehors the recruitment rules as well as constitutional scheme is void.

In the light of the discussions above, the daily wagers of any college or university, who are recruited without following legal procedure and appointed against no-post, are not entitled for regularization under any service rules.

While providing a formal legal opinion to Indore-based Agriculture College, represented by its Dean, it was analyzed by Advocate Mr. A.K. Verma whether it is possible to deny access to the service record of employees (in the nature of personal information) to an applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (herein after the “Act”), and if yes, in what circumstances.

Applications dated 23.07.2013 were filed by Indore-based Mr. Vallabh Chauhan, (herein after called “Applicant”) before the Agricultural College of Indore, under section 6 of the ‘Act’, whereby the Applicant sought certain information in the matters, which are briefly listed as follows:

1. The certified copies of the service records of Mr. Anil Vijayvargeeya and Mr. Avinash Poddar, employees of the Agricultural College.
2. The certified copies of the leave accounts of the aforementioned employees.
3. Complete details of the projects, in which Dr. H.S. Thakur, Dr. M.P. Jain and Mr. Anil Vijayvargeeya have performed work during the period of 2011 to 2013.

Though the Information involved in clause A of the aforementioned Para pertains to the personal information of the third parties, the Dean, who is the Public Information Officer, following the mandate of section 11 of the Act and by the letters dated 13.08.2013, requested the aforesaid employees to file their opinion regarding supply of their information. Both the employees objected the same and requested not to provide their personal information to the Applicant.

While accepting the third parties contentions, the Learned Public Information Officer invoking the provision of Section 10 of the Act, issued a notice dated 20.8.2013 to the Applicant, wherein it was suggested the information can reasonably be served and access can be allowed in part. On the basis of the same, the Applicant deposited requisite amount Rs. 2480/-, subsequent to which, the Learned Public Information Officer provided the information to the Applicant.

In this context, the Learned Dean, Agriculture College, Indore referred the matter for analysis and legal opinion to Advocate Mr. A.K. Verma. The question involved was: –

“Whether, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the personal record, i.e., service record of the employees, can be denied the access to the Applicant?”

In this reference, Section 8(1) (J) of the Act is relevant, which states that any information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasions of privacy of the individual unless larger public interest, justifies the disclosure of such information. In the case in hand, the Applicant did not disclose what larger public interest is involved in seeking personal information of the employees. Hence, under section 8(1) (J) of the Act, Learned Public Information Officer rightly opined that the certified copies of personal records i.e. service records of the employees can not supplied to the Applicant.

The following authorities are relevant in the scenario: –

1. In the case of R.K. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 2003 Del. 24 (D.B.), the Hon’ble High Court opined that the copy of Annual Confidential Report cannot be supplied, if no larger Public Interest is involved.
2. In the case of Hardev Arya v. Chief Manager, AIR 2003 Raj. 97, the Hon’ble High Court opined that the copy of bank details of employees cannot be supplied, if no larger Public Interest is involved.
3. In the case of Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, AIR 2010 Del. 7, the Hon’ble High Court opined that the copy of service records of employees cannot be supplied, if no larger Public Interest is involved.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, vide its Notification no. Q.1 dated 6.9.2013, has made amendments in the High Court Rules, 2008. Now in the formats of the Bail Applications prescribed in Nos. 11, 13 and 14 under Section 389(1),439 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the details of the Bail Application pending or disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and/or Subordinate Courts are mandatorily required to be disclosed.

The aforementioned notification has been is published in M.P. Rajpatra, Part 4(D) no. 37 dated 13.09.2013 and has come into effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Rajpatra.