JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order
dated 12.12.2000 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 244 of 2000 whereby and
whereunder the Original application filed by the respondents
herein for grant of temporary status and regularization
purported to be in terms of a scheme dated 20.06.1997 was
allowed.
2. According to the petitioner, Khalasis are recruited as
Seasonal employees during the floor season. Such
appointment would vary from season to season depending
upon the intensity of the monsoon. Admittedly, such
candidates are appointed without intimating the vacancy
position to the Employment Exchange under the
Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of
Vacancies) Act, 1959 and the candidates being sponsored by
it.
3. The respondents formulated a scheme, which came into
force on 01.06.1997, allegedly pursuant to or on the basis of
a direction issued in this behalf by the Central
Administrative Tribunals, Calcutta and Guwahati Benches.
4. Para 3 of the said scheme is as under:-
“3. This scheme is applicable to the
seasonal khalasis in employment on the work-charged
establishment of the Central Water
Commission on the date of commencement of
the scheme and who continue to be so
employed and have rendered a minimum of
120 days continuous service or such persons
who were engaged any time during the
preceding one year and have rendered a
minimum of 120 days continuous service in
that year.”
5.The construction of the aforementioned provision falls for
consideration in this writ petition.
6. The learned Tribunal held that from the certificates issued
in favor of the petitioners, it would appear that they in the
years 1981, 1986, 1989 and 1990 worked for more than 120
days in a year and as it is not stipulated therein that they
must work for 120 days only in the year 1996, the original
applicants, i.e., the respondents herein were entitled to
grant of temporary status. Hence this writ petition.
7. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, would submit that upon true and correct
interpretation of the said scheme, there cannot be any
doubt whatsoever that the concerned employees for the
purpose of grant of temporary status must work for 120
days continuously.
8. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, would support the
impugned judgment.
9. It is not in dispute that the respondents were unskilled
workers. In the aforesaid scheme, Seasonal Khalasis have
been defined in the following terms:-
“4. Definition: Seasonal Khalasis are
unskilled persons employed year to year to
meet the requirements during the monsoon
season for 24 hours’ observation of river
gauges for the purposes of flood forecasting,
etc. Generally they are employed during the
months from June/July to September/October
when the monsoon is very active. They are
paid at the minimum in the scale of pay of the
post of Khalasis in work-charged
establishment.”
10. Clause 3 of the said scheme is in three parts. In terms of
the said scheme, the Seasonal Khalasis must be in
employment on the work-charged establishment of the
Central Water Commission on the date of commencement
thereof. They must continue to be so employed and have
rendered minimum 120 days continuous service. However,
also those persons who were engaged any time during the
preceding year and have rendered minimum 120 days
continuous service in that year were also entitled to the
benefit there under.
11. Employment of the Seasonal Khalasis on the date of coming
into force of the said scheme, i.e., 01.06.1997 and rendition
of 120 days continuous service is sine qua non for obtaining
the benefit of the said scheme. It is only the second part,
which requires an interpretation.
Under the scheme those who are employed on the
commencement thereof must have rendered a minimum
period of 120 days of continuous service, i.e., from
01.06.1997 and only in that event they are entitled to
temporary status. The expression ‘that’ used in the scheme
is of some significance. They were also under the said
scheme in the alternative was required to have rendered a
continuous minimum service of 120 days in the year
preceding 01.06.1997.
12. Thus, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal has misdirected
itself in issuing the impugned directions.
13. It is also not in dispute that regularization or grant of
temporary status cannot be claimed automatically.
Regularization or grant of temporary status can be conferred
only by reason of a statute or statutory rules and/or any
executive instructions issued in terms of Article 77 of the
Constitution of India.
14. It is no longer res integra that a cut-off date can be fixed in
terms of such scheme. It is also not in dispute that
conditions therefore can also be laid down.
15. The scheme was communicated to all concerned on
20.06.1997.
16. The forwarding letter issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Water Resources to the Chairman, Central Water
Commission also clearly suggests that the said scheme
would only be applicable to those, who are presently
employed and had rendered minimum 120 days continuous
service in the Central Water Commission or those who were
engaged any time during the preceding one year and have
rendered 120 days continuous service in that year. The
Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, committed an error of
law by wrongly interpreting the said scheme.
17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment
cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the writ
petition is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.