Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Pratap vs M/O Defence on 12 September, 2025
1
RESERVED ON 02.09.2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Original Application No.1711 of 2013
Allahabad this the 12th day of September, 2025
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)
1. Ram Pratap son of Sri Ved Ram Yadav,
R/o village chanehta Majra Chait Gautia post chanehati Distict Bareilly.
2. Jagdish Prasad son of Mool Chand, R/o Village Lakhaura Post Umarasiya
Distict Bareilly.
3. Sobaran son of Ram Bharose
R/o Village-Chanehta Majra Chait Gautia, post chanehati, Distict
Bareilly.
4. Gaya Singh son of Sri Dal Chand
R/o Village Chanehta Majra Chait Gautia, Post Chanehati, Distict Bareilly.
5. Mahendra Yadav son of Sri Parkhouti Lal,
R/o Village Chanehta Majra Chait Gautia, post chanehati, Distict Bareilly.
6. Ashok Kumar son of late Ram Bachan Singh,
C/O Devendra Shah, Moti Pahalwan ki nai Building village and post-
Chanehati, Distict Bareilly.
7. Amar Singh son of Shri Bheern Sen,
R/o village Chanehata Majra Chait Gautiya, Post Office-Chanrhti, Distict
Bareilly.
8. Kailash Chandra son of Kisan Lal,
R/o Village and post Chanehata, District Bareilly.
9. Vidya Ram son of Ram Prasad,
R/o village chanehta Majra Chait Gautia, post chanehati, Distict Bareilly.
10.Brij Pal son of Pyare lal resident of village Chanehata Majra Chait
Gautiya, Post Office Chanehati District Bareilly.
11.Mukesh Kumar son of Sri Ram Bharose Lal R/o House No.42 Bareilly
Cantt., Bareilly.
12.Surendra Yadav son of Sri Hari Lal Yadav R/O Ahir Mohalla, Sadar
Bazar.Bareilly Cantt, Bareilly.
13.Ram Babu son of Sri Prabhu Dayal R/O Ahir Mohalla Sadar Bazar, Bareilly
Cantt. Bareilly.
14.Asharfi Lal son of Jamuna Prasad R/O Village Chait Gautiya, Post
Chanehati, District Bareilly.
15. Mithlesh son of R/o Military Dairy Farm Bareilly Cantt, Bareilly.
. . . . . . . . . . .Applicants
By Advocate Shri Devendra Pratap Singh
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH
2
Versus
1. Union India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence Govt.of India,
New Delhi.
2. Director Central Ministry Farm Ministry of Defence, Govt.of India, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi.
3. Director, Military Farm, Central Command, Lucknow-2.
4. Officer Incharge, Military Farm, Bareilly.
. . . . . . . . .Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (A) Heard Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Original Application has been filed by 15 applicants under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, who were appointed as Casual Labour in Military Farm, Bareilly. The applicants have filed this original application seeking following reliefs:-
"i) The applicants pray for fallowing relief:-Issue an order or direction to the respondents to give appointments to the applicants on the post of labourers in military farm Bareilly in same status and scale of pay allowances and other benefits, the applicants were getting with the revised scale of pay and other attending benefits admissible under law...
ii) Issue further order or direction to the respondents to take the applicants in service on the basis of their seniority from the date on which vacancies of labourers arose with other consequential benefits including seniority.
iii) Issue any other order or direction as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the cases.
iv) Award cost original application."
3. The brief facts as narrated by the applicants in the instant original application are that the respondents had called the names from employment exchange, Bareilly for appointment as Casual Labour. The applicants were appointed at Military Farm, Bareilly on the dates mentioned in Annexure A-1 of the OA. The applicants were continuously working under respondent no.3 and NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 3 completed more than 240 days of service. They were granted temporary status w.e.f. March, 1996. The respondent no.3 passed their retrenchment order on 15.10.1998 terminating the service of the applicants with immediate effect by giving one month pay in lieu of notice through cheques. The applicants have challenged the order of retrenchment by filing OA No.566/1998 and OA No.987/2003. These OA's were disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the applicants for appointment against substantive vacancies arising in future as juniors were retained and regularized. The respondent no.3 disposed of the representation but an assurance was given to the applicants that as soon as vacancies arise their re-
engagement will be considered. The applicants approached respondent no.3 against the vacancies that arose in previous years but they were told that no vacancies have arisen. Ultimately the applicant sent representation dated 13.09.2013 to the respondent nos.2,3 and 4 for giving appointment on the post of casual labour as large number of labourers had retired in between. No reply was given to the applicants. Vide letter dated 03.10.2013 respondent no.3 directed the applicants to submit few documents which is reproduced below:-
"(a) Proof that all 15 petitioners who were working in military form Bareilly as casual labours/ Casual labours temp Bareilly.
(b) Copies of the petitions of all petitioners given at the time of termination of their services of Military farm Bareilly.
(c) Orders of the appropriate authority regarding employment to the petitioners on arising vacancies in the military farm Bareilly given on the above petitions.
The copy of letter dated 3.10.2013 was sent to all the applicants by the respondents no 3 and true the copy of the letter dated 3.10.2013 is being filed as annexure No. A-10 to this Original application."
4. The applicants submitted the copies of requisite documents but till date they have not been taken back on duty. In Military Farm Bareilly more than one hundred Class III and Class IV employees are working and provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 are fully applicable and the respondents have retrenched them without completing with the provisions of NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 4 this Act. As per provisions of Section 25-N services can be terminated only after giving three months notice or three months salary in lieu thereof and 15 days salary as retrenchment compensation. The respondents did not seek prior permission from the Ministry of Labour. The applicant shall be deemed to be continuing in service with all service benefits. The respondents have given appointment to 24 labourers in Military farm, Bareilly during year 2003 but no offer of appointment has been made to the applicants in gross violation of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The action of respondents is ultimately illegal, arbitrary, modified and violative of Section 25N and 25H of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. In their counter affidavit the respondents have submitted that the applicants were working as Casual Labour at Military Farm Bareilly and there is no record available regarding asking names from Employment Exchange, Bareilly for employment of casual labour as stated in the original application. In respect of 15 casual labours temporary status was granted in March 1996 and the order no.69 dated 18.03.1996 states that their services can be terminated by giving one month notice in writing if anything is found adverse again them or in case their services are no longer required. Each casual labour signed for the willingness on the above office order. Similarly vide order no.70 dated 18.03.1996 eight casual labours were given temporary status with the same condition. Due to reduction of work in Military Farm Bareilly the services of casual labourers were terminated and one month salary in lieu of notice and compensation @ 15 days salary with each completed year with 240 days attendance were paid to the applicants which was accepted by them. At present, there is no regular vacancy as intimated by Directorate General Military Farms, letter dated 10.01.2014. Services of casual labours were terminated as per the orders received from Director Military Farms, Headquarters Central Command, Lucknow/Dy. Director General of Military Farms, QMG's Branch, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) New Delhi on reduction of work. No appointment was given by Military Farm Bareilly and even Military NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 5 Farm Bareilly is not appointing authority. During course of hearing learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Labour Commissioner has always been kept informed while retrenching the applicants.
6. On reduction of vacancies, the services of casual labours were terminated as per procedure in vogue. In view the above, the respondents have submitted that the original application is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. In their rejoinder affidavit the applicants have reiterated the same facts as mentioned in the original application.
8. In the supplementary counter affidavit it has been stated that the Quartermaster General's Branch, Integrated Head Quarters of MOD (Army), DHQPO, New Delhi by means of the letter No. 01084/MF/Corr./Q1(B) dated 28.07.2017 issued the instructions for closure of Military Farms within three months i.e. 14.10.2017. The office of the Headquarters Central Command, Lucknow directed the Office Incharge, Military Farm, Bareilly by which it is requested to close the Military Farm in stipulated time frame of three months that is up to 14.10.2017. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the process of closure was started and it is almost completed by shifting the Cows to the Govt. of Uttrakhand w.e.f. 25.07.2018 onwards. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid position, when the Military Farms, Bareilly is almost going to be closed shortly, the engagement of casual labours and other man power is not possible.
9. In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that the applicants were given an assurance by the respondents that re-engagement would be made based on seniority. However, despite this assurance and the direction of the Tribunal, the respondents appointed 24 other labourers at Military Farm, Bareilly in 2003, without offering appointment to the applicants. This action is in clear violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the assurance given by respondent No. 3 at the time of retrenchment.
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 6 Furthermore, a policy document titled "ADM INSTRS: CLOSURE OF MIL FARMS" outlines the disposal of goods, livestock, and manpower. Under item No. 8, Appendix 'D' states:
A. No manpower will be retrenched, B. Service offers are recommended for Inter Arms Service Transfer (IAST), C. All permanent employees will be adjusted through AG's Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army).
Therefore, the respondents' claim that re-engagement is not possible is untenable. Since other labourers were appointed, the applicants are entitled to appointment, pay, and allowances from the date those appointments were made. The respondents' actions constitute a breach of legal provisions and prior assurances, making the Original Application justifiable and liable to be allowed.
10. Submissions of both the parties have been heard and records have been gone through.
11. It is noted from the record that the applicants are aggrieved with their retrenchment orders and subsequent failure of respondents to appoint them as Casual Labourers at Military Farm Bareilly. Their contention is that substantive vacancies are existing in the Military Farm. Retrenchment order dated 15.10.1998 in respect of one of the applicants is quoted as under:-
"SHRI KAILASH S/O SHRI KISHAN LAL Retrenchment Order Due to reduction of work, your casual employment is here by terminated with immediate effect. One month salary in lieu of notice and compensation @ 15 days Salary at current rate for each completed year with 240 days attendance is enclosed vide cheque No.158446 dated 15.10.98 for Rs 3,842/-.
You would be considered for re-engagement as per your seniority as and when regular vacancy occurs. You may also take up "Job basis" work to the extent available."
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 7 This order has been passed by Officer Incharge, Military Farm, Bareilly. A copy of the above order has been marked to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bareilly.
12. The applicants have also contended that they were granted temporary status in 1996. From the order of grant of temporary status it is noted that as per paragraph 2 of the order their services can be terminated by giving one month notice in writing if anything is found adverse against them or in case their services are no longer required. The applicants had filed OA No.566/1998 and 567/1998 against their retrenchment orders. Operative portion of order passed in OA No.566/1998 is as under:-
"For the reasons stated in the order dated 30.01.2003, this O.A. is disposed of finally with the direction to respondents to consider the representation of the applicants, which are already on record, and to pass speaking orders thereon as per the present status of the vacancy available with them under intimation to the applicants. The applicants are given liberty to file fresh copy of the representation alongwith copy of this order."
13. The applicants have also been contesting that in view of provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 their services can only be terminated after giving three months notice or salary and with prior approval for retrenchment from Government of India. The applicants have chosen to agitate their retrenchment before this Tribunal and not before the Judicial bodies established under the Industrial Dispute Act,1947, even though they are seeking relief under provisions of Industrial Dispute Act,1947 also.
14. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit in which they have submitted that Military Farm Bareilly has been closed and the instructions for closure of Military Farm were issued in July,2017. Therefore, engagement of casual labour and other Man power is not possible although in the retrenchment order it was mentioned that the applicants would be considered for re-engagement as per their seniority as and when regular vacancy occurs. The services of casual labourers were terminated as per orders received from Director of Military Farm, Lucknow. NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 8 The services of applicants were terminated due to reduction of work in Military Farm, Bareilly and one month salary in lieu of notice was paid which was accepted by them. It has also been clarified that no appointment was given by Military Farm Bareilly.
15. A simple reading of order for grant of temporary status to the applicants in 1996 indicates that their services can be terminated in case their services are no longer required. The applicants had accepted this condition, therefore, no relief can be granted to the applicants at this stage when the Military Farm Bareilly has been closed. The Officer In charge of the Military Farm has kept the Assistant Casual Labour Commissioner, Bareilly informed about their retrenchment in 1998. Since the decision has already been taken to close the farm, no relief to the applicants is possible and the original application is liable to be dismissed.
16. In view of the above, the original application is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. All the MAs associated with this original application stand disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) Member(Administrative) /neelam/ NEELAM KUMARI SINGH