Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Krishankant Harijan vs Department Of Posts on 16 October, 2025
1 OA 490/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No.490/2024
Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2025
Date of reserved :23.09.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE Dr. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
Krishankant Harijan S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan, Aged about 48 years, R/o
117, Stc Road, Harijan Colony, Pratap Nagar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
Post-Working as Sweeper in the office of respondent No.3.
......Applicant
By Advocate: Mr.K.P.S.Bhati
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication
Department of Postal, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi, 110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, 302001.
3. The Superintendent of Post Officers, Chittorgarh Division
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, 312001.
4. The Postmaster, Chittorgarh Headquarter, Chittorgarh-312001.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Mr.K.S. Yadav
RADHE SHYAM
SONGARA
2 OA 490/2024
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Dr. Amit Sahai, Member (A) The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) That record of the case may kindly be called for,
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay to the applicant wages and arrears MTS/cleaner Group 'C' as per the applicable rates of wages of Department of Posts for the additional work at the Head Office done by him in the past at the Head Office.
(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay to the applicant which is granted to the similarly situated employees like Janki Lal and Kana Ram Sharma.
(iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to afford all the consequential and financial benefits to the applicant including arrears (for low wage given), increments, payable emoluments, etc.
(v) That exemplary cost may be imposed on the respondents for causing undue harassment to the applicant.
vi) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant may kindly be granted. The original Application may kindly be allowed with costs and all circumstantial benefits may be granted in favour of the applicant.
v) Costs of this application be ordered to be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-
2.1 Mother of the applicant was appointment by the respondent department on 01.04.1986 on the post of cleaner and was paid a salary of RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 3 OA 490/2024 Rs.150/- per month and her working hours were four hours a day. When applicant's mother was not well work of cleaning, then the work of cleaning was given to the applicant. Vide order dated 17.05.1989 (Annex. A/3) the respondent department has clarified that part time causal labourers are causal labour for all purpose.
2,2 On 19.11.2010 (Annex. A/4) the respondent department issued revised duties of Multi Tasking Staff Group 'C' i.e. watch and ward/caretaker duties, and general cleanliness and upkeep of section/unit/office including dusting of furniture, cleaning of building room and fixtures, gardening will also be the duties of Multi Tasking Staff Group 'C' in addition to duties already entrusted to them. It is further directed that in view of the revised duties assigned to the Multi Tasking Staff Group 'C' there is need to streamline the work entrusted to the casual labourers engaged in the Department of Posts, no causal labourers shall be engaged w.e.f 01.12.2010.
2.3 As per the applicant, the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 06.07.2011 (Annex. A/5), passed an order to not to take work from the RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 4 OA 490/2024 causal labour working in the Head Office. the Department of Posts vide Gazette Notification dated 16.12.2010 (Annex. A/6) had made provisions to appoint causal labour as permanent employees and 25% permanent posts were to be filed in by giving appointment to the causal labour.
2.4 The Ministry of Communications vide letter dated 13.05.2020 (Annex. A/7) had directed that there is complete ban on appointment of casual labour and designate Group D as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) Group 'C' and further instructed that the casual labourers cannot be deployed for work of regular nature, which is assigned to MTS and requested that all possible steps taken to fill up the vacancies and to also follow the procedure laid down in GFR Rules. Despite the various directions issued by the department, the respondent has not considered the applicant for the Multi Tasking Group 'C' staff whereas, person similar to the applicant who are also working as daily wager namely Janki Lal and Kana Ram Sharma in the office of the respondent no. 3 & RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 5 OA 490/2024 4 have been considered. Such act of the respondent is discriminatory in nature.
3. In reply, the respondents submitted that the applicant is claiming the payment of salary/ wages including arrears equal to the post of Multi Tasking Staff (in short MTS), a regular cadre post in Group-C by claiming parity with Janki Lal and Kana Ram. The applicant was asked to perform the sweeping/cleaning work since 1997 and Annex. A/2 was issued on 13.01.2003 certifying the applicants working for last 5 years and paid the wages from contingency fund allowed in the head of office expenses from the contingencies. It is averred that applicant has worked as part time sweeper/cleaner but not a full-time casual labour for the purpose of which the scheme of regularization was framed by the department. Mere engagement of the applicant's mother does not create any right in favour of the applicant as the engagement of the applicant was quite independent and separate from his mother's engagement. 3.1 It is further averred by the respondents that since applicant is a part time Sweeper/cleaner engaged in the year 1997, therefore, his RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 6 OA 490/2024 indirect claim for salary & allowances equal to MTS cadre amounts to regularization is not tenable and deserves to be rejected. It is contended that so far as the case of Janki Lal and Kanaram are concerned, this Tribunal while allowing their OAs No. 505/2011 and 506/2011 vide order dated 01.01.2013 was dealing with the question of their termination of services and thus directed to allow them to perform the duties. Moreover, they were full time casual labour of the respondent department in accordance with the provisions contained in Department of Post (MTS) Recruitment Rules 2010, were selected for the post of MTS by departmental promotional committee on the basis of selection- cum-seniority basis against 25% of vacancy quota of MTS cadre. 3.2 It is further averred in the reply that Kanaram and Janki Lal had been working in the respondent department as casual labour since 1987 therefore by giving the benefits of the schemes and MTS Rules, the respondents selected them as MTS in Group-C quota as provided under the rules by following the judgment process of law, whereas the RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 7 OA 490/2024 applicant was engaged as part time sweeping/cleaning work less than 4 hours and was paid the wages from contingent funds. 3.3 It is also averred that the applicant earlier filed an OA No. 18/2019 before this Tribunal seeking regularization and also claiming payment of wages as per certain OMs. Since different cause of action have been challenged in that OA, therefore, the relief of regularization was withdrawn by the applicant unconditionally at the time of admission of the case, therefore, applicant is not entitled to claim any relief of regularization indirectly now, by filing the instant OA after a period of 6 years.
3.4. Further, the applicant also filed an OA No.259/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.08.2023 with a direction to consider and decide the representation filed by him. Pursuant to which, the said representation has been decided vide order dated 15.09.2023, but the applicant has not challenged such order in the instant OA. 3.5 It is also averred that applicant's mother was never appointed against any sanctioned post but was assigned the part time sweeping RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 8 OA 490/2024 work in division office payable from contingency. The applicant and employment of his mother are separate and distinguishable. It is denied that sweeping work of DO Chittorgarh was given to the applicant, in place of his mother. Sweeping work may be managed by engaging any person by payment from 'contingency fund'. Therefore, the applicant was also engaged for sweeping work on 'contingencies' at different time on working days of the Office and paid from 'contingency fund' on basis of sweeping work performed and in this connection certificate Annexure A-2 was issued by then SPOS, in which it is clearly mentioned that the applicant worked as part time contingent paid sweeper. It is further averred in the reply that a provisions to fill up 25% vacancy of MTS from amongst full time casual labour with different condition was made but it is not applicable to the applicant as he is not a full-time casual labour but remained merely a part time out-sourced worker. Moreover, after the decision taken by the respondents vide order dated 19.11.2010 by including certain duties in the duty schedule of MTS cadre as power RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 9 OA 490/2024 condition No. 3 (ii) of such order Annexure-A/4, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as claimed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the respondent department while dealing with the similarly placed persons Shri Jankilal working as Gardner and Shri Kanaram working as Waterman were granted regular appointment as MTS, whereas he was not considered. Although the applicant has neither impleaded these two similarly placed individuals nor has, he sought relief to be appointed on regular basis as MTS. Moreover, his grievance is that he may be paid remuneration equivalent to a MTS employee. As counter the learned counsel for the respondent during the argument and in the reply submitted that the applicant had never worked as a full-time casual labour like Kanaram Sharma and Janki Lal but had only performed part time duty of sweeping/cleaning for less than 4 hours and paid on pro rata basis as per working duration on daily wages basis. Consequently, the claim of the RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 10 OA 490/2024 applicant to pay the salary for the post of MTS/cleaner in Group C post is baseless, misconceived and concocted, therefore, instant OA deserves to be dismissed. Whereas, Kanaram and Janki Lal were selected as MTS on being working as full time casual labour by the DPC on selection- cum-seniority basis in the year 2016 and 2017, therefore, cause of action for filing the instant OA had become available to the applicant even then he did not seek any relief of regularisation.
6. Moreover, from the records it is seen that earlier the applicant had filed 2 OAs under Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal. The OA No. No. 18 of 2019, with only grievance regarding payments to him by the respondents, which was withdrawn by him vide order dated 30.1.2020-
"Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that most of the reliefs as claimed for by the applicant has already been resolved by the respondents. Therefore, the present OA has become infructuous. However, he submitted that if any grievance remains, he may be given liberty to either approach the respondent authority by way of filing representation or to this Tribunal by way of appropriate proceedings."
Further, it is seen from the records that the applicant's mother was engaged by the respondents w.e.f. 01.4.1986 (Annex. A/1) as part time RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 11 OA 490/2024 casual labour for sweeping/ cleaning purpose. Subsequently, when his mother was indisposed, he took up her work as contingent paid sweeper from 1999 (Annex. A/2). He has based his pleadings for payments to be made equivalent to a Group 'C' MTS based on Respondent Department's circular dated 17.05.1989 (Annex.A/3), wherein the contingent staff is to be treated as part-time casual labour. Therefore, indirectly he is trying to seek relief for regularisation as MTS employee, in spite of the fact as per the direction of this Tribunal in his earlier OA No. 259 of 2023 decided on 11.8.2023, the respondents have already decided upon his grievance by a speaking order dated 15.9.2023 (Annex.R/4). Therefore, nothing survives for reconsideration in the instant OA.
7. In a similar controversy of a part time Waterman the respondent department in OA No. 364/2017 Nena Ram vs. Union of India had rejected the claim of regularization by holding the decision of the respondents of rejection of such claim by a speaking order being just, perfect and legal, vide judgment dated 06.12.2024, while holding that:-
RADHE SHYAM SONGARA 12 OA 490/2024 "7.1 Being aggrieved with the above, the applicant has filed this OA on the ground that he was appointed against sanctioned post, but the above contention of the applicant is not supported by any evidence. There is no material on record to suggest that the applicant was engaged on a sanctioned post. It is an admitted position that the applicant was engaged as part time casual labour.
The respondents have not formulated any scheme for regularization for the part time casual labour. The Scheme framed in the year 1991 is applicable only to the full time casual labours. The benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma Devi (supra) is applicable only to those persons who were engaged as full time casual labour and not to the part time casual labour. Only those workers are entitled to get benefit under Uma Devi's case who had worked for more than 10 years continuously on 10.04.2005 without any protection from the order of Court/Tribunal on a vacant post. Since, in the present matter the applicant failed to establish that the applicant worked as full time casual labour against the sanctioned post for 10 years or more, he is not entitled for regularization in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma Devi. The question before this tribunal is not with regard to grant of temporary status but for giving direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant in terms of Section 53 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma Devi. After passing of the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma Devi the letter dated 17.05.1989 (Annexure-A/4) has lost impotence. Constitution Bench judgment still holds good in relation to regularization of the casual workers. The impugned order has been passed as per the principles propounded in Uma Devi's case and have rightly rejected the claim of the applicant."
8. Resultantly, as discussed above there is no merit in this OA and the same is liable to be dismissed, hence dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr. AMIT SAHAI) MEMBER (A) rss RADHE SHYAM SONGARA