IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15/02/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
W.P.No.3974 of 2003
1. M.Paranthaman
2. S.Nagarajan .. Petitioners
-Vs-
1. Union of India, rep. by its
Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Agriculture,
(Department of Animal Husbandary &
Dairying),
Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-1.
2. The Director,
Central Cattle Breeding Farm,
Avadi (Alamathi),
Chennai-600 052.
3. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench,
High Court Campus,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, after calling for
concerned records relating to the impugned order dated 9.1.20 03 in O.A.No.950
of 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate
the petitioners in service with effect from 9.10.1992 i.e. the date on which
they were denied employment and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise
the services of the 1st petitioner with effect from 24.7.1991 as per the order
of the 1st respondent No.8-7/89-LD.II, dated 2.8.1991 with all consequential
benefits and grant temporary status to the second petitioner with effect from
1.9.1993 as has been done in the case of other casual labourers and grant them
all consequential monetary and other benefits.
!For petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar
^For respondents : Mr.L.M.Praghasam for RR-1 & 2
R-3 Tribunal
:ORDER
(The Order of the Court was made by R.Sudhakar,J.)
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.1.200 3
in O.A.No.950 of 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
dismissing the Original Application.
2. The prayer before the Tribunal in O.A.No.950 of 2002 is as
follows:
“a. Set aside the order No. 55/XIV/Lab./2002/1342, dated 08.10.2002
passed by the 2nd respondent, and
b. Direct the Respondents to re-instate the Applicants in service
with effect from 08.10.1992 i.e. the date on which they were denied
employment and direct the Respondents to regularise the services of the 1st
Applicant w.e.f. 24.07.1991 as per the order of the 1st respondent
No.8-7/89-LD.II, dated 02.08.1991 with all consequential benefits and grant
temporary status; to the second Applicant with effect from 0 1.09.1993 as has
been done in the case of other Casual Labourers and grant them all
consequential monetary and other benefits.”
3. In the instant case, the relief sought for by the first petitioner
has been granted by the proceedings of the respondents as is evident from the
counter affidavit. The first petitioner confirms that the relief has been
granted to him. Hence, in the writ petition, we are concerned with the second
petitioner alone.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioners were initially appointed on 8.10.1982 on casual basis
in the second respondent-Central Cattle Breeding Farm. On 2.8.1991 , a
Departmental Selection Committee found the first and second petitioners
suitable for the post of Agriculture Attendant. On 26.8.1991, the first
petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Attendant on adhoc basis and continued
till 31.12.1992. The second petitioner was not appointed for want of vacancy.
On 27.9.1992, the petitioners were implicated in a criminal case. On
30.9.1992, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vengal Police Station, sent a letter
to the second respondent about the involvement of the petitioners in the
criminal case. On 13.10 .1992, fearing arrest, petitioners filed
Crl.O.P.No.13008 of 1992 and obtained an order of anticipatory bail with
conditions. On 4.1.1993, the Sub-Inspector of Police gave a letter to the
second respondent stating that he has no objection for taking the petitioners
back to work. On 28.2.1993, it is stated that the petitioners reported to
duty and were not allowed to join, therefore, a representation was made on the
same day. Thereafter, the petitioners filed O.A.No.1331 and 1332 of 1993 for
a direction to reinstate them. On 28.3.1995, the Tribunal dismissed the
applications on the ground that the prayer for reengagement cannot be granted
in view of the pendency of the criminal case. It was however observed that it
was open to the respondents to re-engage the petitioners if they are
exonerated by the Police or Court. It was also observed by the Tribunal that
the petitioners were working from 1982 onwards and therefore, the benefit of
Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of
Government of India, 1993, can be considered after the completion of the
criminal case. By order dated 20.7.2001, both the petitioners were acquitted
in the criminal case. After the acquittal by the criminal Court, a
representation dated 26.7.2001 was made to the second respondent to grant
temporary status with effect from 1.10.1993. Thereafter, several
correspondences took place between the petitioner and the second respondent
and by lawyer’s notice dated 29.12.2001, the petitioners called upon the
second respondent to implement final order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1331 and
1332 of 1993 dated 28.3.1995 and reinstate them in service. The first
respondent by letter dated 4.1.2002 also called upon the second respondent to
furnish certain details relating to casual labourers, the said letter reads as
follows:
“Subject: Re-instatement of Shri S.Nagarajan, Casual Labour and Shri
M.Paranthaman, Agri. Attdt.,(Ad-hoc) in CCBF, Chennaireg.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No.26/XIV/Labour/2001/dated 30
.7.2001 on the subject mentioned above and to request you to furnish full
details of casual labour at present and at the time when above two labours
were sent out of job. Whether these two are covered by the scheme of 1993.
Other details like how many junior persons have been regularised, whether
there is any vacancy at present and whether it is a permanent post or
temporary one and if temporary one whether it is continued for the block years
2001-02 may also be furnished.”
Accordingly, on 29.1.2002, the second respondent furnished details including
the three vacancies in Group-D temporary post. The petitioners filed another
O.A.No.683 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking direction to reinstate them
with consequential benefits. The Tribunal, by order dated 26.7.2002, passed a
final order directing the respondents to dispose of the representation and the
notice, both dated 26.7.200 1, within a period of six weeks from the date of
communication of the order. By proceedings dated 8.10.2002, the request for
reinstatement was rejected by the second respondent stating that there was no
work at the Farm and no casual labourers were appointed then. Therefore, the
petitioners filed O.A.No.950 of 2002 challenging the order of the second
respondent dated 8.10.2002 denying reinstatement and sought for reinstatement
with effect from 8.10.1992. This was contested by the respondents and by
order dated 9.1.2003, the Tribunal held that there was no evidence before the
Tribunal to show that the posts were available in order to accommodate the
petitioners so as to give a direction for reinstatement or to regularise their
services, in view of the position that there was no work in the Farm and no
casual workers were appointed. The Tribunal held that the second applicant is
only the casual labourer, and therefore, rejected his claim. As far as the
first applicant is concerned, the Tribunal directed the respondents to
consider the case of the first applicant as and when the post is made
available or sanctioned by the Government of India. As against the same, the
writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioners were working from 1982. But for the criminal case pending against
them, they should have been considered for regularisation and consequential
benefit under the said Scheme. The petitioners also pleaded that their
juniors have been regularised and it is only because of the criminal case,
they could not be considered at the appropriate time. However, as and when
they were acquitted in the criminal case, they sought for reinstatement and
for regularisation which has been negatived arbitrarily.
6. A counter has been filed by the second respondent wherein it has
been stated that the case of the first petitioner was considered pursuant to
the order of the Tribunal dated 9.1.2003 and the Ministry has sanctioned and
approved the regular appointment of the first petitioner in Group-D post.
However, as regards the second petitioner, it is submitted that he was only a
casual labourer and he was not considered for regularisation by the
Departmental Promotion Committee for want of vacancy and therefore, he
continued as casual labourer upto 30.9 .1992. It is also admitted that one
post of Agriculture Attendant is lying vacant since 30.9.1992 which could not
be filled due to ban on recruitment and pending decision of the Court in
O.A.No.1332 of 1993 . It was further contended in the counter that since the
Tribunal has directed that the case of the first petitioner alone should be
considered, the case of the second petitioner was not considered by the
Department.
7. At the time of final hearing of the above writ petition, learned
counsel for the petitioner brought to our attention an order of this Court in
W.P.No.15668 of 2001, dated 20.2.2004, as confirmed by the First Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.2144 of 2005 by judgment dated 22.11.2005. In that case, the
writ petition relates to the claim of the Union representing the employees
working in the second respondentFarm. In the said writ petition, the claim
was for regularisation of certain number of casual workmen on the ground that
they had completed 2 40 days in 12 calendar months as required under law and
also on the basis of the undertaking made by the Management before the Central
Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 5.6.1989. A learned single Judge
of this Court therefore allowed the writ petition and quashed the award dated
8.8.2001 passed by the Tribunal and directed the Management to pass
appropriate orders regularising the services of casual labourers of the Union
with effect from the date of raising the industrial dispute before the
competent authority and for consequential benefit of completion of continuity
of service for all terminal/ retirement benefits from the date of completion
of 240 days’ services in 12 calendar months in the Management. As stated
earlier, this order of the learned single Judge was confirmed by the First
Bench of this Court. Placing reliance on the abovesaid decision, the second
petitioner would submit that he would be entitled to the same relief as he has
completed 240 days in 12 calendar months long before and therefore, his claim
also to be considered on the same basis.
8. The fact that the second petitioner was appointed in 1982 is not
disputed and that he has been in service for more than ten years when the
untoward incident happened wherein petitioners were implicated in the criminal
case and ultimately acquitted. But for the said event, the case of the second
petitioner should have been considered for regularisation under the said 1993
Scheme. The criminal case has also ended in favour of the second petitioner.
The only ground now stated is that there is no work at the Farm. Hence, at
the present moment, there is no impediment to take the second petitioner in
the vacancy admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit. It is not
disputed that pursuant to the order of the Court in W.P.No.15668 of 2001, all
the casual labourers (workers) have been taken for regular appointment. There
cannot be a different treatment to the second petitioner. In any event, the
only reason given in the counter affidavit is that the second petitioner is a
casual labourer and was not considered for regularisation by the Departmental
Promotion Committee for want of vacancy and therefore, he continued as casual
labourer upto September 1992. However, it is also stated that one post of
Agriculture Attendant is lying vacant since 30.9.1992. That being the case,
there cannot be any impediment to consider the claim of the second petitioner
in the said post. It is not disputed by the respondents that the 199 3 Scheme
will not apply to the second petitioner. Hence, the order rejecting the claim
of second respondent is bad.
9. The writ petition is allowed in part. The second petitioner shall
be taken into appointment from 9.10.2003 as is the case of the first
petitioner. However, the second petitioner shall not be entitled for any
monetary benefits for the past period till today and such period can be taken
into for the purpose of increment and other benefits in future. The second
petitioner shall be permitted to join duty within thirty days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
Index: Yes
Internet:Yes
cs
To
1. Union of India, rep. by its
Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Agriculture,
(Department of Animal Husbandary &
Dairying),
Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-1.
2. The Director,
Central Cattle Breeding Farm,
Avadi (Alamathi),
Chennai-600 052.
3. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench,
High Court Campus,
Chennai.