Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Urmila vs M/O External Affairs on 18 May, 2023
1
Item No.34
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.956/2018
This the 18th day of May, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
1. Ms. Urmila
Age 35
D/o Late Shri Rit Lal
A-270, Dakshinpuri
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar
New Delhi - 110 062.
2. Mrs. Sheela
Age 45
W/o Late Sh. Balak Ram
House No.3286
72b, Molarband Ext.
60 Feet Road
Badarpur, Delhi.
3. Sh. Gopal
Age 37 years
S/o Late Sh. Rattan Singh
House No.214
Road No.07, Andrews Ganj
New Delhi - 110 049.
4. Sh. Mahender Kumar Bishnoi
Age 43 years
S/o Late Sh. S.P. Bishnoi
House No..08
Sani Mohalla
Salimar Gaon
Delhi.
5. Sh. Deepak
Age 38
S/o Late Sh. Amar Singh
House No.111
Kh. No.1151/3
Ward No.02, Mehrauli
New Delhi - 110 030.
2
Item No.34
6. Sh. Chandan Singh Rawat
Age 41
S/o Sh. Mohan Singh Rawat
House No.08, MEA Staff Quarters
Akbar Bhawan
New Delhi - 110 021.
7. Sh. Babloo
Age 40
S/o Late Sh. Battu Ram
House No.11, MEA Staff Quarters
Akbar Bhawan
New Delhi - 110 021.
8. Sh. Bunty Singh
Age 35
S/o Late Sh. Amar Singh
A-172, Aram Bagh
Paharganj
Delhi - 110 055.
9. Sh. Manoj Kumar
Age 38
S/o Late Sh. K.K. Unni
A-309, Gali No.13, Madhu Vihar
Delhi - 110 059.
10. Sh. Kadam Singh
Age 40
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
E-28, Shakur Pur Colony
New Delhi - 110 034.
11. Sh. Mohd. Akram
Age 40
S/o Late Sh. Abdul Quddus
151, Gali No.3
Sangam Vihar
Wazirabad
Delhi - 110 084.
12. Sh. Manoj Kumar Parcha
Age 41
S/o Sh. Puran Singh Parcha
30/201, Trilok Puri
Delhi - 110 091.
3
Item No.34
13. Smt. Sumitra Devi
Age 49
W/o Late Sh. Rambeer
A-99, Ambedkar Nagar
Ghaziabad, U.P.
14. Smt. Shakuntla Devi
Age 46
W/o Late Sh. Harpal Singh
H-2, 234, Sultan Puri
Delhi - 110 041.
15. Smt. Rajani
Age 44
W/o Late Sh. Nandan Singh
E-112, C Kamna Vaisali
Ghaziabad, U.P.
16. Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Age 39
S/o Late Sh. Jagroop Singh
RZ-24, A Santosh Park
Uttam Nagar
New Delhi - 110 059.
17. Sh. Vishal
Age 30
S/o Sh. Balesh Kumar
C-3/371, Lodhi Colony
New Delhi - 110 003.
18. Sh. Gavinder Kumar
Age 36
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar
E-2/107, Nehru Vihar
Delhi -110 094. ... Applicants
(All the applicants are working in the department
as casual workers.)
(By Advocate : Mr. Vatsal Kumar and
Mr. Anumeha Singhai )
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Foreign Secretary
4
Item No.34
Ministry of External Affairs
South Block
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. Ministry of External Affairs
Through (Joint Secretary) Administration
South Block
New Delhi - 110 011. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Rajeev Kumar)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J):
In the present OA, the applicants are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not regularising their services despite the applicants have completed more than ten years of service as casual labourers in various divisions/under respondents i.e. Ministry of External Affairs.
2. The applicants have prayed for the following relief(s) :-
"A. Direct the Respondents to regularize the services of the Applicants w.e.f. the date they completed 10 years of service and grant all consequential benefits to them;
B. Direct the Respondents to grant monetary and other benefits to the Applicants as granted to regular employees, w.e.f. the date they completed 10 years of service;
C. Such other and further order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in the facts and circumstances of the present case."5
Item No.34
3. It is the case of the applicants that during the years 2003 to 2005, the applicants were appointed as casual labourers on daily wage basis to carry out day to day works under various department/divisions/ sections of the Ministry of External Affairs and since their initial engagement as such, the applicants are discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. Vide order dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure A/4), the respondents considered and regularised the services of similarly placed 44 casual labourers. As applicants were not considered and regularised by the respondents, the applicants preferred representations, and when their such representations were not considered, the applicants approached this Tribunal vide OA No.3294/2017 and such OA was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order dated 19.09.2017 (Annexure A/10), with directions to the respondents to consider such representations of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The impugned order dated 02.01.2018 is admittedly passed by the respondents pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal in Order dated 19.09.2017 in the said OA. Vide order dated 02.01.2018, the claim of the applicants for regularisation of their 6 Item No.34 services has been rejected on the ground that the claim of the applicants for regularisation can be done only under provision of casual labourers (grant of temporary status and regularisation) Scheme of Government of India circulated vide DOP&T OM dated 10.09.1993. The said OM stipulates the conditions for grant of temporary status and regularisation of the services of the persons engaged on daily wage basis in Central Government as on 10.09.1993 and the benefits of temporary status is available only to those casual labourers, who were in employment as on the date of issuance of OM dated 10.09.1993, and this view is stated to have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.2224/2000 in the case of Union of India & Anr. Ors. Vs. Mohal Pal etc. It is recorded by the respondents in the impugned order dated 02.01.2018 that as the applicants were not in employment with the Ministry on that day, they do not fulfill the condition for Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation and are found ineligible for the same.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that 44 similarly placed casual workers, who are 7 Item No.34 regularised by the respondents vide order dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure A/4) had also not been on the rolls of respondents on the date of issuance of the OM dated 10.09.1993. He further submits that subsequently the respondents have further regularised 31 similarly placed persons vide order dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure A/7 colly), of course, in compliance of Order dated 11.11.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.7808/2012 titled Ritu Kishwaha and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. after approval of the competent authority. He adds that the persons regularised vide order dated 12.08.2015 were also similarly placed as the applicants in the present OA.
5. It is the case of the applicants that the petitioners in the case of Ritu Kishwaha (supra) initially approached this Tribunal vide OA No.3949/2011. However, the said OA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.2012 and the applicants in the said OA challenged the order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court after considering the relevant OMs on the subject as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary of State of Karnataka Vs. 8 Item No.34 Uma Devi had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in terms of their Policy/Scheme in the light of the said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra). He further submits that the petitioners in the case of Ritu Kishwaha (supra) as well were not on the rolls of the respondents on the date of issuance of the OM dated 10.09.1993 and they were also engaged in the year, 2000.
6. Learned counsel argues that vide impugned order the applicants have arbitrarily been discriminated.
7. In response to the notice, the respondents have filed counter reply and have opposed the claim of the applicants and have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
8. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents by referring the various paragraphs of the counter reply submits that the applicants were also considered by the respondents, however keeping in view the fact that they were not under the services of the respondents on the date of issuance of OM dated 10.09.1993, they were not found eligible for regularisation. He further submits that keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the 9 Item No.34 case of Uma Devi (supra) if appointment itself is found in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provision of the Constitution, illegality cannot be perpetuated. He has also submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohan Pal (supra), referred to in the impugned order, the Scheme of the Government notified vide OM dated 10.09.1993 of DOP&T is one time and as applicants were not entitled for the benefits of grant of temporary status, they have not been found eligible for regularisation as well.
9. We have perused the pleadings and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. It is not in dispute that the applicants were engaged/appointed by the competent authority amongst the respondents through offer of appointment from various dates between years, 2003 to 2005. It is also not in dispute that the applicants have been continuing under the respondents as casual labourers since their initial engagement. The assertions made by the applicants in para 4.8 of the OA to the effect that all 44 casual labourers whose services were regularised by the respondents vide 10 Item No.34 order dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure A/4) were also similarly placed as the applicants in the present OA. On perusal of para 16 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Ritu Kishwaha (supra), it is evident that the order of regularisation dated 10.09.2013 and various other orders of regularisation in the Government of India have been considered. Besides the Hon'ble High Court in the said case has also considered the OM dated 07.06.1988 i.e. an OM before the OM dated 10.09.1993 and also subsequent OM dated 24.12.2008 on the subject. Hon'ble High Court while passing the said order has taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has attained finality as is evident from the facts that in compliance of directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents have considered and regularised 31 similarly placed casual workers vide order dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure A/7 colly). Thus the applicants have been treated arbitrarily in the matter of consideration for regularisation of their services.
11. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 02.01.2018 deserves to be 11 Item No.34 set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicants for regularisation in the same manner as 44 casual labourers, who have been considered and regularised, vide order dated 10.09.2013 and further 31 casual workers, who were regularised vide order dated 12.08.2015. The necessary orders in this regard shall be passed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicants shall be entitled for consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
12. OA stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
( Sanjeeva Kumar ) ( R.N. Singh )
Member (A) Member (J)
/uma/
12
Item No.34