Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Yash Pal Jai Singh Son Of Shri Sushil ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 6 December, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench.
O.A.NO.754-PB-2009 December 6, 2010
CORAM : HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (JUDL.) &
HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A).
Yash Pal Jai Singh son of Shri Sushil Kumar, age 30 years, working as Part time Chowkidar in Sub Post office, Bassi Pathana, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab).
. Applicant
By : Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajpura sub Division, Rajpura-140401.
3. Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
Respondents
By : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate.
O R D E R(ORAL)
HONBLE MRS.SHYAMA DOGRA,JM The facts in brief, as projected by the applicant, are that he was appointed as a Part-time Chowkidar in Sub Post Office, Bassi Pathana on 1.3.2002. However, he was directed to perform duties from 5.00 PM to 09.00 A.M, since the date of joining his duty. To support this plea, he has annexed copy of the Attendance Roll (Register) for the month of April, 2009 (Annexure A-8). He claims that he is responsible for looking after the building of the Sub Post Office and record kept there with furniture and fixtures which contain cash and other valuable items. By using the term part-timer, the applicant is being denied full salary and benefit of regularisation etc. He has, therefore, prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him full pay and allowances by treating him as a full time casual worker in terms of various decisions rendered by this Tribunal as upheld by High Court of H.P. including his entitlement to minimum of the pay scale of Group D post, for performance of 8 hours of duty per day etc. along with overtime allowance for the period spent on duty beyond 8 hours.
2. The respondents have filed a reply. They submit that after various judgements, the Department had framed Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status) Scheme vide OM dated 12.4.1991 under which temporary status was to be conferred on casual labourer who were in employment as on 29.11.1989 and had rendered continuous service of at least one year. The scheme was extended up to 10.9.1993 vide circular letter dated 1.11.1995. In this case the applicant was engaged as Chowkidar in 2002 and as such he is not entitled to any relief. No appointment letter had been issued in favour of the applicant and as such no wages or salary was ever drawn against his name. He was engaged as a contingent-paid employee and such employees are not governed by any service rules nor is there any qualification, age, education or experience prescribed for the post of part-time chowkidar and he is not entitled to pay and allowances at par with regular employees.
3. The applicant has filed a rejoinder
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file.
5. After careful consideration of the matter we are of the view that the point included in this case is no longer res-integra and stands settled by this Bench of the Tribunal. A similarly situated employee like the applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing an O.A. No. 360-HP-1999 titled Moti Ram Vs. Union of India & Others, claiming a similar relief which was decided on 16.5.2000 (Annexure A-1) holding that the applicant therein, admittedly, was working for 16 hours every day and as such it is not justified to treat him as part-time chowkidar and a direction was issued to the respondents to treat him as full-time Chowkidar and pay him the pay and allowances at par with full-time chowkidars. A further direction was also issued to consider his claim for grant of temporary status. Review Application filed by the Department for review of the order dated 16.5.2000 was also dismissed. The respondents filed CWP No. 662 of 2001 in the Honble High Court of H.P. However, the CWP was also dismissed on 4.5.2007 (Annexure A-2). The Department filed an R.A. which too was dismissed on 26.3.2008 (Annexure A-3). The decision was ultimately implemented vide order dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure A-4). Again, a similar issue was considered in the cases of Puran Chand Vs. Union of India & Another, O.A.No.1084-HP-94, decided on 29.10.1996 and Narain Singh Vs. Union of India & Another, O.A.No. 861-CH-99 decided on 25.4.2000. The decision in the case of Rattan Chand was challenged by the Union of India in C.W.P No. 440 of 2001, which was decided on 4.5.2007, dismissing the Writ Petition. The applicant seeks benefit of judicial pronouncements afore-mentioned.
6. In this case we find that it is admitted even by the respondents that the applicant is performing duties during the whole night. Therefore, it is not justifiable to treat him as a part-time Chowkidar. Therefore, the applicant is held to be treated as casual full-time Chowkidar. However, his claim for back wages is confined to three years preceding the filing of this O.A. and respondents are directed to grant him arrears of such wages along with other consequential benefits granted to this category of employees, like overtime allowance etc. in the light of the decisions referred to hereinabove, as per law and rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In terms of these directions, this O.A. stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Place: CHANDIGARH.
Dated: 06.12.2010.
HC*
4