Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mukesh Pandey vs Archoelogical Survey Of India on 20 March, 2026
OA No. 505 of 2018
(Reserved on 10.03.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad this, the 20th day of March, 2025
Original Application No. 505 of 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
1. Mukesh Pandey, aged about 29 years, Son of Gopal Dutt Pandey,
Resident of Village Tole, Post Pannianaula, Amorah, Uttarakhand.
2. Mahendra Pal, Son of Late Radhe Shyam Pal, Resident of Village-
Singhpur, Post & Police Station-Sarnath, District-Varanasi.
3. Ranjeet Paswan, Son of Preman Paswan, Resident of Village-Mayapur,
Post-Karijadpur, Police Station-Fatehpur, District-Gaya, Bihar.
4. Ashok Kumar, Son of Chandrika Prasad, Resident of Village-Baraipur,
Police Station-Sarnath, District-Varanasi.
5. Dilip Kumar, Son of BachuRam, Resident of Viillage-Pai Bigha, Block-
Belagary, District-Gaya, Bihar.
6. Mohd. Kaleem, Son of Mohd. Rafeek, Resident of Ashapur, Post-Sarnath,
District-Varanasi.
7. Surendra Kumar Pal, Son of Shyam Lal Pal, Resident of Sandaha, Mewri,
Post Umraha, PS Chaubepur, District - Varanasi.
. . .Applicants
By Advocate : Shri Jaswant Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Department of Archeological Survey of India, through
its Director General, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.
2. Director General, Archeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-
110011
3. Joint Director (Accounts), Department of Archeological Survey of
India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.
4. Additional Director General, Museum of Archeological Survey of India,
Sarnath, District-Varanasi.
5. Superintendent Archeological University, Museum of Archeological
Survey of India, Sarnath, District-Varanasi.
6. Deputy Superintending Archeologist, Archeological Survey of India,
Archeological Museum Sarnath, Varanasi, U.P. 221007.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 1 of 17
OA No. 505 of 2018
7. Assistant Superintendent Archeological University, Museum of
Archeological Survey of India, Sarnath, District-Varanasi.
. . .Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative) Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :
"(i) To pass an order directing the Respondent Authorities to forthwith reinstate/re-absorb the application on their previous posts as held by them Prior to 01.04.2018 in the museum of Archeological Survey of India, Sarnath, Varanasi.
(ii) To pass an order directing the respondent authorities to regularize the applicants in the Museum of Archeological Survey of India, Sarnath, Varanasi.
(iii) To pass an order directing the respondent authorities to forthwith allow the applicants to work in the Museum of Archeological Survey of India, Sarnath, Varanasi, as earlier.
(iv) To pass an order directing the respondent authorities to pay minimum wages to the applicants along with dearness allowance and grant them 1/30th status.
(v) To pass an order directing the respondent authorities to pay the arrears to the applicants as till date they were not paid the minimum wages or dearness allowance.
(vi) To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the applicants is that the applicants were appointed as a daily wager in the year 2009 and since then have been diligently discharging the various duties assigned to them from time to time. In the year 1993, a scheme was circulated for grant of temporary status and regularization of the daily wagers or the casual labours namely Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 Scheme 1993. On 25.06.2002 the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India again issued a clarification letter with respect to the casual labour (Grant of temporary status and regularization) scheme of Govt. of India through which it was directed to continue the scheme of 1998 and provide benefit of 1/30th to those labours who are working for a period of at least 240 days.01.04.2018. The applicants, who should have been given temporary status and considered for regularization under the ASI's 1998 policy, were instead orally and illegally removed from service on 01.04.2018, reportedly because the ASI had shifted to outsourcing casual labour. Earlier, when the Central Office, New Delhi came to know that offices were not granted the required 1/30th status to the labours, they issued another letter and directed them to grant the benefit s as per the policy of 1998. Another office memorandum dated 16.10.2015 was issued for providing the benefits for 2014-15. Against the illegal removal of the applicants, they preferred a representation before the respondents requesting them not to remove the applicants as daily wagers but till date no reply has been given by the respondents. Hence, this OA.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants have worked for more than ten years on duly sanctioned posts, continuously performing duties identical to those of regular employees, and they possess the required qualifications. Although temporary or daily-wage appointments may be made in limited circumstances, the applicants' long, uninterrupted service gives rise to legitimate expectations of regularization, especially since the authorities voluntarily retained them without any court orders. The respondents' decision to replace them through outsourcing is arbitrary, violates Articles 14 and 16, and contradicts the settled principle that an ad hoc or temporary worker cannot be replaced by another temporary arrangement but only by regularly selected employees. Having effectively RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 acquired the status of temporary employees through prolonged service, they could not lawfully be discontinued without following due procedure.
5. The respondents have denied the contention of the applicant by filing the detailed counter affidavit and submitted that the applicants were engaged as per requirement for performing duties of sweeping and cleaning of the galleries and museum campus. It is submitted that the scheme of 01.09.1993 is not an ongoing scheme and the temporary status can be conferred on the casual labourers under that scheme only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in clause 4 of the scheme, namely, they should have been casual labourers in employment on the date of commencement of the scheme and they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year i.e. at least 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of offices having 05 days a week). Since the applicants were not in employment on the date of commencement of the scheme, therefore, they do not fulfil the conditions for grant of temporary status and regularization of service. It is submitted that the nature of work entrusted to the applicants was not the same as that of regular employees. Therefore, they are not entitled to be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance. It is submitted that the applicants were paid only the minimum wages as revised and notified by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India from time to time. It is submitted that the OM dated 06.06.2002, issued by DOPT is only regarding Temporary status and regularization of casual labourers which explicitly states that the scheme of 01.09.1993 is not an ongoing scheme and the temporary status can be conferred to the casual labourers under the scheme only on fulfilling the conditions laid down in the scheme. The applicants in the present case do not fulfil the conditions of the scheme. It is further submitted that the DOPT vide their OM No.40011/6/2002-Estt (c) dated 06.06.2002, pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP (Civil) No.2224 of 2000, in the case of Union RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 of India & Another Vs. Mohan Pal etc. has clarified that the scheme of 1993 is not an on-going scheme and therefore, the applicants do not have any claim for regularization in terms of the said Scheme. In the circumstances, the respondent department is well within its right to disengage the services of the applicants and in terms of Rule 197 of GFR-17. On the basis of above discussions, learned counsel for the respondents has requested to dismiss the OA as devoid of merit.
6. In rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the similar facts as given in the OA and added that in the case of State of Haryana and ors Vs. Piara Singh and ors , it is held that adhoc or temporary employees should not be replaced by other adhoc or temporary employees and should only be replaced by regularly selected employees. It is also submitted that the applicants have worked for more than 240 days for a continuous period, which is the minimum qualification for grant of temporary status and regularization of casual labours.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the supplementary counter affidavit in which they have submitted that respondents have not engaged any casual labour by replacing the casual labours. The tender notices issued on various dates have not been acted upon as none of the participating firm could qualify for the tender. All the 07 numbers of casual labours engaged as per requirement have been stopped from 01.04.2018. As far as regularisation under Uma Devi judgment dated 10.04.2006 is concerned the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued the following conditions for regularisation as one time measure :
(i) Continuous service of 10 years or more as on 10.04.2006 against a duly sanctioned post.
(ii) Engagement having been continued without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or Tribunal.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018
(iii) Engagement/appointment was not illegal but only irregular."
The applicant do not fulfil the above conditions and are not liable to be regularised.
8. Heard the rival submissions and verified the documents available on record.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & ors. Vs. Piara Singh & ors. of which paragraph 25 is relevant which is reproduced as below :-
"25. Before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to say a few words concerning the issue of regularisation of adhoc/temporary employees in government service.
The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an adhoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an adhoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc/temporary employee.
Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.
Thirdly, even where an adhoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly.
An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes.
If for any reason, an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 The proper course would be that each States prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same way be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be.
So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6.4.90 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work-charged employees as well as casual labour.
We must also say that the orders issued by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana providing for regularisation of adhoc/temporary employees who have put in two years/one year of service are quite generous and leave no room for any legitimate grievance by any one.
These are but a few observations which we thought it necessary to make, impelled by the facts of this case, and the spate of litigation by such employees. They are not exhaustive nor can they be understood as immutable. Each Government or authority has to devise its own criteria or principles for regularisation having regard to all the relevant circumstances, but while doing so, it should bear in mind the observations made herein."
10. He has further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh & ors. Vs. State of U.P. & ors. in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018. He has mainly relied on paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced as below :-
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non- suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 7 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records- despite directions to do so- allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily- wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. .........
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 8 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using outsourcing as a Shield : Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.""
11. He has relied on the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.500 of 2014 and relied on para 7 and 8, which is reproduced as below :-
"By way of Instant O.A., the relief of the applicant is for absorbing in the respondents' department as well as for grant of temporary status in pursuance to the Government Order dated 10.09.1993. The fact which is pleaded by the applicant's counsel is that the applicant was initially engaged in the respondents' department as a casual worker in the month of December, 1992 and worked up to September, 1993. The respondents have admitted the working of applicant at Customs P Division, Nautanwa and calculated the working of applicant as '206' days. Therefore, they pleaded that the applicant is not entitled for the relief in pursuance to Government Order dated 10.09.1993. Subsequent pleading with regard to status of the applicant from September, 1993 to June, 2010, he was engaged on contract basis and in support of the same, the applicant has relied upon one communication letter dated 13.09.2005 (annexure A-7) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Seema Shulk (Custom Duty), Nautanwa has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. The submission of applicant is that identically placed one Smt. Suman Mishra who has filed the O.A. before this Tribunal bearing O.A. No. 1163/2006 wherein this Tribunal vide Order dated 11/12/2009 has directed the respondents to consider the case of applicant for grant of temporary status. The respondents department on 04.08.2010 has granted temporary status to Smt. Suman Mishra at Gorakhpur Division with observation that she would not be entitled to any benefit of arrears or wages/pay or seniority vis-à-vis other casual/contingent workers so regularized from time to time. Counsel for the applicant submitted that when the applicant agitated this issue for similar benefits before the respondents' authority, the respondents have removed him by oral order and thereafter, he has not been engaged. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the action of respondents' department is discriminatory regarding grant of benefits to one of the Identically placed person and denying the same benefit to applicant. He further submitted that since the fact regarding engagement of applicant till 2010 has not been disputed and on the RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 9 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 strength of his working, the applicant has completed more than 10 years of continuous service with the respondents' department, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Jaggo v. Union of India and others, decided on 20.12.2024 Civil Appeal No. 5580 of 2024 2025 (1) ESC 127 [SC]". The relevant portion of the Judgment is quoted below: -
"25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of "temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual", even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using outsourcing as a shield: Institutions Increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "Irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when Institutions rely on its dicta to Indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 10 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered Indispensable services over decades."
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the orders of respondents' department and directed for continuity of service without any pensionary benefits and backwages.
10. In view of the above discussion, the O.A. is disposed of with direction upon the respondents' department to consider the case of applicant for absorption and grant of temporary status in the light of his strength of working till 2010 keeping in mind the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to costs." The facts in the above OA are different than the facts in the present OA, hence, it is of no help to applicant.
12. He has also relied on the judgment passed by this Tribunal in OA No.221 of 2019, in which the Tribunal has discussed the order passed by CAT, Jabalpur Bench in OA No.600 of 2017 alongwith connected OAs. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as below :-
"10. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by CAT Jabalpur Bench in OA No.200/600/2017 along with connected OA. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced as below :-
"Similarly, the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 17.10.2018 passed in Original Application No.063/00873/2017 has directed to grant the applicants therin pay in similar terms as granted to similarly placed persons i.e. 1/30th of pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale and other related benefits available under the policy. Subsequently, the coordinate Bench at Kolkata in O.A. No.350/00936/2019 (Obaidul Islam and others vs. Union of India and others) vide its order dated 11.11.2022 has issued certain guidelines to form a committee to consider the cases of employees working in ASI. In view of such position, learned counsel for the respondents appearing in Original Application No.477/2017 and other connected OAs filed before this Bench, had conceded that the respondent department has constituted a committee to examine the case of all workers demanding regularization under ASI in the light of Supreme Court judgment and the rules and regulations vide order dated 20.04.2023. He further averred that the committee constituted has to submit its recommendations to the DG ASI within three months and a policy decision has been taken to grant 1/30th status to all casual labours who were on muster rolls and for regularization a committee RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 11 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 has been constituted which was communicated vide letter dated 29.05.2023. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents in the aforesaid OAs, those Original Applications were disposed of with the following directions:
"2. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Coordinate Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.350/00936/2019 (Obaidul Islam and others vs. Union of India and others) vide its order dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure R/1) has issued certain guidelines to form a committee to consider the cases of employees working in ASI. In compliance of said order, the respondent-department has constituted a committee to examine the case of all workers demanding regularization under ASI in the light of Supreme Court judgment and the rules and regulations vide order dated 20.04.2023 (AnnexureR/2). Further it is submitted by the respondents that the committee constituted has to submit its recommendations to the DG ASI within three months and a policy decision has been taken to grant 1/30th status to all casual labours who were on muster rolls and for regularization a committee has been constituted which was communicated vide letter dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure R/3).
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants will be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider and decide their case for regularization along with other employees for which committee has already been constituted in a time bound manner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the Original Application is disposed of as per law in above manner.
5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, these Original Applications are disposed of at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, directing the competent authority of respondents to consider and decide the applicants' case for regularization along with other employees, as per rules, within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of this order. For this purpose, applicants are directed to serve a copy of this order along with a copy of O.A. to respondent-authority."
7. The issue regarding regularisation of the casual labourers/dail wagers working in ASI is no longer res integra as the same has already been decided by the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.340/2013 and subsequently by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.063/00873/2017, wherein while taking note of the fact that status of 1/30th of the pay has been granted to some similarly situated workers likewise the applicants therein, the Tribunal has directed to grant same status to the applicants. Similarly, when the same issue travelled to this Bench in OA No.477/2017 & other connected OAs, the same were disposed of with the consent of the parties vide order dated 24.01.2024 to consider and decide the case of the applicants therein, within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of the order. We have not been apprised by either of the sides as to what decision has been taken by the Committee in pursuance of orders passed by us as now the period of three months for compliance is already over and failing to do so shall always be a subject matter of contempt. The applicants have also filed copy of the chart (Annexure A-3 along with OA No.200/40/2019) to show that their engagement was for more than 240 days throughout the years. In any case, the fact of the matter remains that once the ASI has already extended the 1/30th status of similarly situated counterparts of the applicants working in the Circles RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 12 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 other than Madhya Pradesh, it is incumbent upon them to grant similar benefits to the present applicants also. Hence, if the applicants are otherwise similarly placed to that who have been granted the status of 1/30th of pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale of a Group D plus DA, they are also entitled for the same treatment.
8. Accordingly, we dispose of all these Original Applications and direct the respondents to grant the status of 1/30th of pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale of a Group D plus DA to the applicants, if they are similarly situated to the persons, who have already been extended this status pursuance to the orders passed by the different Benches of this Tribunal. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs."
The facts in the above case are different than the facts in the present OA, hence, it is of no help to applicant.
13. As submitted by learned counsel for the respondents the applicants do not fulfil the condition prescribed in DOP&T OM dated 10.09.1993 as they were not on the job on the date of issue of above OM. Here it would be relevant to reproduce the aforesaid OM, which is reproduced as below :-
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. of Personnel and Training) OM No. 51016/2/90 Estt. ( C ) dated 10th September l, 1993 (XXI) Subject: Grant of temporary status and regularisation of casual workers -
Formulation of a scheme in pursuance of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Judgment dated 16th February, 1990 in the Case of Raj Kamal & Others Vs UOI.
The guidelines in the matter of recruitment of persons on daily-wage basis in Central Government offices were issued vide this Department's OM No. 49014/2/86-Estt. (C) dated 7.6.88. The policy has further been reviewed in the light of the judgment of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi delivered on 16.2. 1990 in the writ petition filed by Shri Raj Kamal & Others Vs Union of India and it has been decided that while the existing guidelines contained in OM dated 7.6.88 may continue to be followed, the grant of temporary status to the casual employees, who are presently employed and have rendered one year of continued service in Central Government offices other than Deptt. of Telecom, Posts and Railways may be regulated by the scheme as appended.
2. Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring the scheme to the notice of appointing authorities under their administrative control and ensure that recruitment of casual employees is done in accordance with the guidelines contained in OM dated 7.6.88. Cases of negligence should be viewed seriously and brought to the notice of appropriate authorities for taking prompt and suitable action.
Sd/- Y.G. Parande Director RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 13 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 APPENDIX Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. of Personnel and Training, Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme
1. This scheme shall be called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993."
2. This Scheme will come into force w. e. f. 1.9.1993.
3. This scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries/Departments of Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices, on the date of issue of these orders. But it shall not be applicable to casual workers in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and Department of Posts who already have their own schemes.
4. Temporary Status
(i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week).
(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Group `D' posts.
(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circle on the basis of availability of work.
(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not, however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group `D' posts.
5. Temporary status would entitle the casual labourers to the following benefits:-
(i) Wages at daily rates with reference to the minimum of the pay scale for a corresponding regular Group `D' official including DA, HRA and CCA
(ii) Benefits of increments at the same rate as applicable to a Group `D' employee would be taken into account for calculating pro-rata wages for every one year of service subject to performance of duty for at least 240 days, 206 days in administrative offices observing 5 days week) in the year from the date of conferment of temporary status.
(iii) Leave entitlement will be on a pro-rata basis at the rate of one day for every 10 days of work, casual or any other kind of leave, except maternity leave, will not be admissible. They will also be allowed to carry forward the leave at their credit on their regularisation. They will not be entitled to the RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 14 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 benefits of encashment of leave on termination of service for any reason or on their quitting service.
(iv) Maternity leave to lady casual labourers as admissible to regular Group `D' employees will be allowed.
(v) 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularisation.
(vi) After rendering three years' continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on par with temporary Group `D' employees for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group `D' employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of their Department.
(vii) Until they are regularized, they would be entitled to Productivity Linked Bonus/ Adhoc bonus only at the rates as applicable to casual labourers.
6. No benefits other than those specified above will be admissible to casual labourers with temporary status. However, if any additional benefits are admissible to casual workers working in Industrial establishments in view of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, they shall continue to be admissible to such casual labourers.
7. Despite conferment of temporary status, the services of a casual labourer may be dispensed with by giving a notice of one month in writing. A casual labourer with temporary status can also quit service by giving a written notice of one month. The wages for the notice period will be payable only for the days on which such casual worker is engaged on work.
8.Procedure for filling up of Group `D' posts (i ) Two out of every three vacancies in Group `D' cadres in respective offices where the casual labourers have been working would be filled up as per extant recruitment rules and in accordance with the instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training from amongst casual workers with temporary status. However, regular Group `D' staff rendered surplus for any reason will have prior claim for absorption against existing/future vacancies. In case of illiterate casual labourers or those who fail to fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed for post, regularisation will be considered only against those posts in respect of which literacy or lack of minimum qualification will not be a requisite qualification. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they have worked continuously as casual labourer.
9. On regularisation of casual worker with temporary status, no substitute in his place will be appointed as he was not holding any post. Violation of this should be viewed very seriously and attention of the appropriate authorities should be drawn to such cases for suitable disciplinary action against the officers violating these instructions.
10. In future, the guidelines as contained in this Department's OM dated 7.6.88 should be followed strictly in the matter of engagement of casual employees in Central Government offices.
11. Department of Personnel and Training will have the power to make amendments or relax any of the provisions in the scheme that may be considered necessary from time to time."
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 15 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 Clearly the applicants were not on job on 10.09.1993 and accordingly, they have not completed one year clear on such date so they were not granted temporary status.
14. It is also relevant to reproduce the DOP&T OM dated 06.06.2002, which is as under :-
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions(Department of Personnel & Training) O.M.No. 40011/6/2002-Estt( C ) dated 6 June, 2002 (XXIX) Subject: Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993-Clarifications.
The Undersigned is directed to say that the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 formulated in pursuance of the CAT,Principal Bench judgement dated 16th February, 1990 in the case of Raj Kamal & Others Vs. Union of India and circulated vide this Department's OM no.51016/2/90-Estt(C ) dated 10th September, 1993, inter alia stipulate the following conditions for grant of temporary status to the persons recruited on daily wage basis in the Central Government Offices:-
(i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of the OM (namely 10-9-93);
(ii) (ii) Should have rendered a continuous service of at least one year,which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days a week); and
(iii) (iii) Conferment of temporary status on casual labourer would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities and the engagement will be on daily rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circle on the basis of availability of work.
2. Various Benches of the CAT and some High Courts have been taking the view that the scheme is an ongoing affair and that any casual employee who is engaged for 240 days or more (206 days in case of five days a week offices) acquired a right to temporary status. The Supreme Court has finally decided the matter in SLP ( Civil ) No. 2224/2000) in the case of Union of India& Anr. Vs. Mohan Pal etc. etc. The Supreme Court has directed that:-
"The Scheme of 1-9-93 is not an ongoing Scheme and the temporary status can be conferred on the casual labourers under that Scheme only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in clause 4 of the scheme, namely, they should have been casual labourers in employment on the date of the commencement of the scheme and they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year i.e. at least 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of offices having 5 days a week). We also make it clear that those who have already been given 'temporary' status on the assumption that it is an ongoing RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 16 of 17 OA No. 505 of 2018 Scheme shall not be stripped of the 'temporary' status pursuant to our decision"
3. The Supreme Court in the above case have also considered the question as to whether the services of casual labourers who had been given 'temporary status could be dispensed with as per clause 7 as if they were reqular casual labourers and observed that-
"The casual labourers who acquire 'temporary' status cannot be removed merely on the whims and fancies of the employer. If there is sufficient work and other casual labourers are still to be employed by the employer for carrying out the work, the casual labourers who have acquired 'temporary' status shall not be removed from service as per clause 7 of the Scheme. If there is serious misconduct or violation of service rules, it would be open to the employer to dispense with the services of a casual labourer who had acquired the 'temporary' status"
4. All Ministries/Department are requested to bring the above judgment / observations to the notice of all concerned for strict observance. The existing guidelines in the matter of engagement of casual workers in Central Government offices contained in OM No. 49014/2/86-Estt.( C ) dated 7-6-88 may also be observed scrupulously while making engagement of casual labourers."
15. In the present case contrary to relied upon judgments of this Bench, no interim stay was granted in favour of applicant in the present OA. The applicants in this OA do not fulfil the conditions prescribed by DOP&T OM dated 01.09.1993 as well as no temporary status was granted to them. The applicants have not worked for 10 years continuously. Under the conditions, the present OA is not similar to OAs decided by this Bench taking reliance from the order passed by CAT, Jabalpur Bench. The judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by applicant also deal with different issues and are of no help to applicants. I do not find any merit in the present OA and on the basis of that, the OA deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. As applicants have experience and expertise in dealing with the work associated with the department of respondents, the respondents are directed to engage them on priority basis provided such work is available and pay the wages paid to similarly situated workers in other sites of the respondents' department. No order as to costs.
16. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) Member(Administrative) RKM/ RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 17 of 17