JUDGMENT
H.K. Sema, J.
1. We have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant Union of India and Mr. P.G. Baruah, learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondents. The argument of this case was concluded on March 12, 2001 at the last minute of the Court hours and due to time constrained it was kept reserved.
2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated August 27, 1996 passed in Civil Rule No. 1839/1993 disposing the writ petition with a direction to the respondent/appellant (Union of India) to regularise the services of the members of the petitioner Association casually paid labourers employed under the Border Road Organisation, who have been working for more than 5 years. The direction was to be carried out within a period of 6 months from the date of the order. The writ appeal was once disposed of by a Division Bench on September 22, 1997. with certain modification of the order passed by the learned single Judge. However, on appeal preferred by the Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 944/1999, the Supreme Court by its order dated February 19, 1999 set aside the order of the Division Bench and remanded the appeal before this Court for fresh hearing. This is how the matter has been placed before us again for disposal.
3. The writ petition, Civil Rule No. 1839/1993 was filed by the Vartak Labour Union represented by its President, inter alia. claiming regularisation of the casually paid labourers employed under the Border Roads Organisation (BRO). In view of the order, we propose to pass, it may not be necessary for us to recite the circumstances leading to filing of the writ petition.
4. During pendency of this writ appeal Mr. K.K. Mahanta has produced a copy of the scheme framed for welfare of casually paid labourers employed under BRO by the appellate authority contained in the Office memo No. Sectt BRDB ID No. BRDB/04(90) 99-GE-II dated February 2, 2001 to show that a scheme has been prepared for the welfare of casually paid employees pursuant to the Circular dated May 25, 1988 which was one of the subjects of controversy before the Apex Court. It may be pointed out that one of the reasons for setting aside the earlier judgment dated September 22, 1997 by the Division. Bench disposing the Writ Appeal No. 548/1996 was non-consideration of the circular dated May 25, 1988 while disposing of the writ appeal.
5. We have perused the scheme-formulated by memo dated February 2, 2001 pursuant to the circular notified on May 25, 1988. After perusal of the scheme prepared by the Union of India, we are of the view that the scheme has been framed on rational basis having regard to the welfare of the casually paid labourers employed under the BRO in various projects. Mr. P.O. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioners fairly submits that the petitioner Union is satisfied with the terms and conditions set out in the scheme and it should be implemented without further loss of time as the petitioner Union has been fighting for improvement of the conditions of service of casually paid labourers for quite some time.
6. For brevity, the operative portion of the terms and conditions set out in the welfare scheme prepared for the casually paid labourers are as follows:
“In order to increase the absorption of CPLs in regular employment in BRO, it is now proposed to grant the following relaxations, which were not admissible to them hitherto before provided they have completed a minimum continuous service of one year (ignoring technical breaks of one day) as CPL:
(i) For regular recruitment to some Group-D namely, the pioneers, masalchi, safaiwalla, mess waiters, barbar, washman and boot-maker vacancies certain minimum educational qualifications have been prescribed for various categories of posts. The CPLs now need not have any educational qualifications for being eligible to aforesaid Group D posts.
(ii) The CPL will have the relaxed physical standards to the extent those are admissible to the sons of the Service/GREF personnel for their employment in BRO. This relaxation has been laid down in the respective recruitment rules Government policy issued in this respect.
(iii) The age limit for recruitment to aforesaid category ‘D’ posts in BRO is varying from 22 to 25 years with a further employment on continuous basis (ignoring the technical breaks of one day) will have the benefit of age relaxation for recruitment to the aforesaid Group D vacancies in BRO. This age relaxation will operate as follows:
(a) Those who have completed 5 years or more of continuous service as CPLs (ignoring the technical break of one day) will get across-the-board relaxation of five years in age for being eligible for the recruitment to aforesaid Group-D posts in BRO. This would mean that another five years will be added in all such cases to the maximum age limits as laid down in the respective recruitment rules for various categories (General, SC, ST, OBC) persons.
(b) The age relaxation shall be limited to the actual period of continuous services rendered in the BRO in those cases, where the five year continuous service has not been completed.
(c) Those, who do not become eligible for the recruitment to aforesaid Group-D vacancies in BRO inspite of the above relaxation will be compensated with 15 days’ wages for every one year of continuous service rendered as CPL in the BRO subject to a maximum period of service of five years. This compensatory grant will be paid to them on being discharged by the BRO or on seeking the voluntary discharge. On receipt of the compensatory grant above, they shall have no claim whatsoever, against the BRO.
(d) The lady CPLs will be eligible for the compensatory grant only. They will not be eligible for the regular employment in BRO in view of the ban on regular recruitment of female in the BRO.”
7. The aforesaid scheme in our view has been prepared on rational basis taking care the grievance raised by the Vartak Labour Union. Mr. P.G. Baruah fairly submits that petitioner/respondent Union is satisfied with the scheme prepared by the appellant.
8. In the result, this appeal is disposed of in the terms and conditions stipulated in the scheme. Consequently, the judgment and order dated August 27, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 1839/1993 s set aside. The appellants shall now proceed to implement the scheme prepared and notified on February 2, 2001 immediately.