CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6857 of 2005 PETITIONER: D.G, Doordarshan Mandi House, New Delhi & Ors. RESPONDENT: Manas Dey & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/2005 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6666 of 2005)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
holding that the respondent were entitled to the benefit
under the scheme called Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary
Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 of Government of
India. Judgment and order dated 7th September, 2001 passed
by the Calcutta Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (in
short the ‘Tribunal’) in OA No. 992 of 1998 filed by the
respondent under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal
Act, 1985 (in short the ‘Act’) was held to be in order.
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
Respondents filed an original application before the
Tribunal claiming that they had rendered service from 1988
to 1997 as casual workers. According to them they have
completed the requisite period of service as described
hereinbelow:
“It was claimed that the department had
circulated by O.M. No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C)
dated 10.9.1993 a scheme for grant of
temporary status and regularization of casual
workers. The scheme is called Casual
Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularisation) Scheme of Govt. of India,
1993. The said scheme came into force with
effect from 1.9.1993. The scheme envisaged
grant of temporary status to casual labourer
who had worked at least 240 days in a year
(206) days in the case of offices observing 5
days a week)”.
The relevant portion of paragraph 3 of the scheme reads
as follows:
“This scheme is applicable to casual
labourers in employment of the
Ministries/Department of Government of India
and their attached and subordinate officer,
on the date of issue of these order.”
Paragraph 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows:
“Temporary Status – Temporary status would
be conferred on all casual labourers who are
in employment on the date of issue of this
O.M. and have rendered a continuous service
of at least one year, which means that they
must have been engaged for a period of at
least 240(206 days in the cases of offices
observing 5 days a week).”
It was held by the High Court that though this Court
had in Civil Appeal No. 224 of 2000 and connected appeals
held that the scheme in question was not an on going process
but one time scheme yet the judgment and order of the
Tribunal having been rendered on 7th September, 2001 long
before the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal referred
to above, a right which had arisen from the Tribunal’s order
has been saved by this Court in its judgment. It was noted
that positive direction has been given by this Court in the
judgment that those who had already been given temporary
status on the assumption that the scheme is an on going
scheme should not be deprived of the said status because of
the judgment.
According to learned counsel for the appellant the High
Court’s judgment is clearly erroneous on the face of the
judgment in Union of India v. Mohan Pal and Others reported
in (2002(4) SCC 573).
On the contrary learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the observations in paragraph 11 of Mohan
Lal’s case (supra) protect them as was rightly observed by
the High Court.
The controversy can be resolved on the basis of the
interpretation of clause 4 of the Scheme. As already
noticed, the Scheme came into effect from 1.9.1993.
Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the
conferment of “temporary” status is to be given to the
casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of
commencement of the Scheme. Tribunal has taken the view
that this is an ongoing scheme and as and when casual
labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days
(in case of offices observing 5 days a week), they are
entitled to get “temporary” status. We do not think that
clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing scheme.
In order to acquire “temporary” status, the casual
labourer should have been in employment as on the date of
commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered
a continuous service of at least one year which means that
he should have been engaged for a period of at least 240
days in a year or 206 days in case of officers observing 5
days a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not
appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the
purpose of giving “temporary” status to all the casual
workers, as and when they complete one year’s continuous
service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to
formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that
the casual labourers are to be given “temporary” status
and later they are to be absorbed in Group “D” posts.
This position was highlighted in Union of India v.
Gagan Kumar (JT 2005 (6) SC 410).
Above being the position the Tribunal’s order is
clearly untenable and the High Court was in error in
proceeding under the assumption that the protection given to
some of the parties in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) applied to
the facts of the present case.
As was observed in Gagan Kumar’s case (supra) the
observations in paragraph 11 of Mohan Lal’s case (supra)
were rendered in a different factual background and context
and have no application to the facts of the present case.
Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.