Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Tabe Ram S/O Shri Gummat Ram vs Union Of India on 29 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 109-HP of 2012
Chandigarh, this the 29TH day of March , 2012
CORAM:HONBLE SMT. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE SMT.PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER(A)
Tabe Ram s/o Shri Gummat Ram, aged 51 years, presently working as Part Time Chowkidar in the Post Office Aut, Distt. Mandi (H.P.)
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI D.R. SHARMA
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, H.P. Cirlce, Shimla.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Mandi Division, Mandi.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ROHIT SHARMA FOR MR. DEEPAK AGNIHOTRI
ORDER (Oral)
HONBLE SMT. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER(J):-
This O.A. has been field by the applicant for issuance of directions to the respondents to pay him the minimum of the pay scale for eight hours duty, while declaring his term as part time chowkidar, as illegal and against the rules with further prayer to grant him temporary status and, thereafter, regularise his services on the post of chowkidar, with all the consequential benefits, which have accrued to him in view of the scheme of the respondent department dated 12.4.1991 alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. as has been given to similarly situated persons while implementing the Judgments and orders passed by this Tribunal from time to time particularly vide Annexure A-1 to A-4 and Annexure A-11 & A-13.
2. Applicant has also prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 27th July, 2011 (Annexure A-5/A) vide which the duty hours of the applicant have been changed by the respondents in three shifts in a very arbitrary manner.
3. The grievance of the applicant in the present O.A. is that he was engaged as chowkidar while terming him as a Part Time at Sub Post Office Aut, District Mandi (H.P.) on 8.3.1989 vide Annexure A/6 dated 23.11.2011 which document was supplied to him under the information sought under the RTI Act. The applicant submits that though he was termed as part time chowkidar yet he was continuously working in the said post office from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m., since his initial engagement on 8.3.1989 to 27th July, 2011 (Annexure A/5/A). The respondents have changed the duty hours of the applicant in three shifts i.e. 6 a.m. to 9 p.m, second shift from 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. and the last shift from 5 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. just to harass the applicant for no reason.
4. It is pleaded by the applicant that his case is fully covered by the scheme formulated by the respondents on 12.4.1991 (Annexure A/5) which is known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in which it is provided that temporary status would be conferred on the casual labourers who were in employment as on 29.11.1989 and continue to be currently employed and have rendered continuous service of atleast one year, and during the year they should have been engaged for a period of 240 days (206 days) in the case of offices observing a 5 day week. For the purpose of grant of temporary status, such casual engagement should be for eight hours including half an hours lunch time and they will be paid at daily rates on the basis of the minimum of the pay scale for a regular Group D official including DA, HRA, and CCA.
5. Thus, while referring to these provisions, the claim of the applicant is that he cannot be termed as part time chowkidar as he was performing duties for more than eight hours, therefore, he is entitled to be treated as full time casual labourer and to grant him temporary status and thereafter regularisation. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the various decisions rendered by this Tribunal claiming the case of the applicant to be identical to those cases, which are also annexed herein a Annexures A/1 to A/4 and Annexure A/13 & A/14. The aforesaid scheme has been placed on record as Annexure A/5. He thus submits that he may be granted the same relief as has been granted to similarly situated persons by the respondents while implementing the aforesaid decisions.
6. The respondents have filed written statement and have raised a preliminary objection that the applicant was engaged as contingent part time chowkidar on 8.3.1989. He was required to guard the post office for five hours only during the night for which he was being paid minimum pay scale of Group-D on pro-rata basis for five hours on monthly basis. The Sub Postmaster resides near that Post Office where the applicant has been working, therefore, the respondent department is utilising the services of the applicant only for five hours daily, therefore, his prayer cannot be accepted to treat him as full time casual labourer. His case is not covered by the Judgments referred to hereinabove in view of the view taken by the Honble Supeme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, as his case is not governed by any service rules and his initial employment was not through Employment Exchange. They have also referred to some other Judgments cited as 2007 (3)SCT 540 Veer Kumar Singh University Adhoc Teachers Association and Others Vs. Bihar State University 9cc) Service Commission and Others; 2007 (3) SCT 475 UP Power Corporation Ltd. And Another Vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others.
7. The respondents have further submitted that there is no sanctioned post of chowkidar in the office and it is only contingent paid allowance which is sanctioned which is equivalent to five hours wages of Group D on pro-rata basis . They have also submitted that applicants case is not covered under 1991 Scheme as alleged by him that too after nearly 20 years. Therefore no relief can be granted to him. Same pleas have been reiterated in the reply on merits by the respondents with further submissions that Sub Post Master is residing near the Post Office building, therefore, he is responsible for every custody of cash and valuables which are kept in the office duly locked in joint custody and applicant is required to do five hours duly only. Therefore this O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. After perusal of the various decisions rendered by this Bench from time to time, it is found that the respondents have taken the same plea while disputing the working hours of the chowkidars and the plea of residence of the Sub Post Master near the post office or his residence within the office premises and this Court has held that since the applicants were performing the duties during the whole night they cannot be termed as part time and once they are not part time employees, they are governed by the scheme of 1991 which is applicable to those who were employed on 29.11.1989. In the present case, the applicant was admittedly engaged as chowkidar on 8.3.1989 and since he has been working as such and performing night duty it can safely be presumed that the applicant has been performing the duties for the whole night and therefore, he cannot be termed as part time chowkidar. Therefore, once he is not termed as a part time chowkidar, he is entitled to be treated as full time casual chowkidar, held to be entitled to the same benefits for grant of temporary status and thereafter for his consideration for regularisation with all the benefits as have been given to similarly situated persons who have approached this Tribunal and will be covered under the orders passed in their cases vide Annexure A/15 dated 29.7.2011.
9. We order accordingly as the case of the applicant is found to be squarely covered by these Judgements. Consequently, the concerned respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders while treating the applicant as full time chowkidar from his initial date of engagement and consider his case for grant of temporary status with all financial and other consequential benefits as have been given to other similarly situated persons, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. So far as the regularisation of the applicant is concerned, his case may be considered as per his seniority amongst the temporary status casual labourers as per rules and law.
10. With these observations and directions, this O.A. stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA) MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: March 29 , 2012
`sk
1
(OA No. 109-HP-2012 )