The Delhi High Court has stressed that courts must safeguard the rights of weaker sections of society to ensure that the ‘socialist’ character of the Indian democracy, as envisaged in the Preamble, remains intact.

A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla made the observation while dealing with a dispute concerning the regularisation of vendors and bearers engaged by the Indian Railways.

“It is time that Courts protected the interests of the weaker sections of the society and persons drawing paltry wages, so as to ensure that the socialist structure of our democracy – which is a preambular goal – remains intact,” the Bench observed in its September 8 judgment.

The vendors had initially been engaged by the Railways on a commission basis. After serving for several years, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking regularisation of their services.

In 2016, the CAT directed the Railways to regularise their services within 90 days and also granted them allowances and litigation costs. The Tribunal noted that the vendors were economically weak and had spent considerable amounts of money pursuing their claims.

The Union Government later sought a review of the order, but the plea was dismissed. It then approached the High Court challenging the CAT's decision.

Before the High Court, the Railways submitted that some eligible bearers and vendors had already been absorbed into regular Group-D posts.

The High Court, however, observed that the Railways could not have adopted a screening process to exclude any of the vendors from regularisation. It further noted that the Railways had failed to substantiate its claim that several of the respondents who had approached the CAT had actually been absorbed as Group-D employees.

“To say the least, this is very disturbing,” the Court remarked, adding that the Railways was expected to show greater candour before both the Tribunal and the High Court.

The Bench also noted that despite several decades having passed, there had been no substantial progress in the absorption or regularisation of the vendors and bearers.

The Court expressed “deep regret” that low-paid Group-D employees had been forced to litigate for decades to secure their legitimate entitlements despite directions issued by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions.

The High Court therefore refused to interfere with the CAT's order and observed that the Tribunal had, if anything, been lenient while imposing costs on the Railways.

The Bench said it could have considered enhancing the costs but decided not to do so.

The Court directed the Railways to comply with the CAT's directions within four weeks.

It was also informed that contempt proceedings initiated before the Tribunal against the Railways had been kept in abeyance pending the High Court's decision. The Court directed the Tribunal to revive those proceedings if the Railways failed to comply with its directions within the stipulated period.

Central Government Standing Counsel Mukul Singh and Pratima N Lakra, along with advocates Aryan Dhaka, Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Upanita Soumyadarshini, appeared for the Union of India.

Advocate Ambhoj Kumar Sinha appeared for the vendors.

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Mithai Lal & Ors.