Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Swaraj Kmar Shrivastava S/O Late Awadh ... vs Union Of India on 11 October, 2013
RESERVED
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
1. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2011
2. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 394 OF 2011
3. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 395 OF 2011
4. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 397 OF 2011
5. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 713 OF 2011
6. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 714 OF 2011
7. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 715 OF 2011
8. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 716 OF 2011
9. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 727 OF 2011
10.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 729 OF 2011
11.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 880 OF 2011
12.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 943 OF 2011
13.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 440 OF 2012
14.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 442 OF 2012
15.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 443 OF 2012
16.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 444 OF 2012
17.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 445 OF 2012
18.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 446 OF 2012
19.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 447 OF 2012
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 11th day of October, 2013
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HONBLE MR.G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
(1) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2011
Swaraj Kmar Shrivastava S/o Late Awadh Bihari Lal Shrivastava, Aged about 40 years, R/o Purani Basti Kashtya Para, Raipur 492001 -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
4. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(2) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 394 OF 2011
Mahendra Yadava S/o Late Sukhlal Yadav aged about 40 years, R/o Gram Raipura, Tehsil Raipur ,District Raipur 492001 -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
4. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(3) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 395 OF 2011
1. Rashtra Pal Vandre S/o Laxman Rao Vandre, aged about 35 years R/o Shiv Chowk, Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Raipur 492001
2. Sajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Bhagirathi Sahu, aged about 30 years R/o Near Jaichandi Buidling Works, Tirnga Chowk, Kushal Pur, Raipur 492001
3. Rakesh Kumar Mahanand S/o Kishan Lal Mahanand, Aged about 35 years, R/o Bairon Bazar, Kundra Para, Raipur 492001
4. Vimal Kumar Louvanshi S/o Parashram Luvanshi, aged about 36 years, R/o LIC Colony, Raipur 492001, Mowa Raipur
5. Kesh Kumar Rajak S/o Late Gautam Rajak, aged about 46 years, R/o Near Resai Mata Mandir, Ramsagar Para, Dhamtari, 493773 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
4. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(4) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 397 OF 2011
1. Mayaram Nayak S/o Late Guru Ji Nayak, aged about 31 years, R/o Uttkal Nagar Kundrapara, Bairan Baza,r Rapur (C.G.) 492001
2. Sekhar Singh Markam S/o Amar Singh Markam aged about 40 years, R/o Old Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) 492001
3. Murat Lal Sarpa S/o Punau Ram, aged about 46 years R/o Near Math Puraena, Raipur (C.G.) 492001
4. Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Hari Ram Sahu, Aged about 43 years, R/o Near Kali Badi, Nehru Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492001
5. Ravindra Kumar Mahanand S/o Kartik Ram Mahanand, aged about 33 years, R/o Behind Primary School, Sadar Police Line, Raipur (C.G.) 492001
6. Tulsi Rao S/o Shri Narsaiya aged about 38 years R/o New Pension wada Arvind Nagar Raipur (CG) 492001
7. Janardan Rao Mohite S/o Shri Guhri Rao Mohite C/o Chand Rattan Singh Jhanda Chowk Sanjay Nagar Tikra Para Raipur (CG) 492001
8. Prahlad Singh Yadav, S/o Late Pardeshi Ram, aged about 43 years R/o Near Dr. Vadhwani, Durga Chowk, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) 492001
-Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
4. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(5) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 713 OF 2011
1. Dinesh Dubey S/o Late Bedram Dubey aged about years R/o Near Sulabh Sochalaya Math Puraina Water Tank Raipur (C.G.) 492001
2. Smt. Jayanti Nihal, W/o Shri Abhimanu Nihal, aged about, Behind Police
Control Room Utkal Nagar Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 492001 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Aykar Bhawan, Hosangabad Road Bhopal M.P. 462016
4. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492001 -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(6) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 714 OF 2011
1. Joshi Shendre S/o Shri Badru Shendre aged about ------ R/o Pandri Gagannath Raipur (C.G.) 492001
2. Gopal Sahu S/Shri Manbodh Ram Sahu R/o Near Sahu Pan Place Amapara Bajrang Nagar Raipur CG 492001 - Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Aykar Bhawan, Hosangabad Road Bhopal M.P. 462016
4.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492001
6. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Civil Lines, Raipur,
CG 492001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(7) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 715 OF 2011
1. Khilawan Singh S/o Late Manrakhan Korse, Aged about ---- R/o village Bodal Post-Kankot, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 491 001
2. Uttam ssing Gayakwad S/o Late Ram Chand R/o Village -Deori, Post Anda The. Gunderdehi District Durg 491001
3.Sukhen Kumar Joshi s/o Beer Singh R/o Village Bodan Post Kanakot, Tehsil Patan District Durg C.G.491001
4.Panchram Kosre S/o Manrakhan Kosre Village Badal Post Kanakot Tehsil Patan District Durg C.G. 491001
5. Pawan Kumar Bogde S/o Gyaniram Bogde, R/o Prem Nagar Durg C.G. 491001 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Aykar Bhawan, Hosangabad Road Bhopal M.P.462016
4.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
5.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 492001
6. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai CG 491001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(8) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.716 OF 2011
1.Kamal Kumar Ber S/o Shyam Lal Ber, aged about years, R/o Village Harfatrai, PO Achouta, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) 493773
2.Anil Kumar Rangari S/o Kartik Ram Rangari, Aged about, Village Mathuradih, Post Office, Achouta, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 493773
3.Sahabuddin S/o Shekh Jamaluddin House No.35/2434, Near Jagannath Mandir Sector-5 Vallabh Nagar Pachpedi, Nak Raipur C.G. 492001 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Aykar Bhawan, Hosangabad Road Bhopal M.P.462016
4.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
5.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 492001
6.Income Tax Officer, Aykar Bhawan Shankardah Road, Dhamtari-CG 493773 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(9) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.727 OF 2011
Santosh Mahanand,S/o Late Bhimraj Mahanand,Aged about,Near All India Radio,Utkal Nagar,Civil Lines,Raipur,C.G.-492001 -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Aykar Bhawan, Hosangabad Road Bhopal M.P.462016
4.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 492001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(10) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.729 OF 2011
1.Lalit Swami S/o Shri Ashok Swami, aged about 29 R/o 2/9 Income Tax Colony Sector-6 Bhilai Nagar district Durg Village Bodal, Post Kankot, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 491001
2.Bhagwat Prasad Yadava aged about 38 years C/o Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai CG 491001
3.Rampal Sahu aged about 45 years, C/o Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai C.G. 491001
4.RewaRam Gaykwad aged about 32 years C/o Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai CG 491001 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Aykar Bhawan, Hosangabad Road Bhopal M.P.462016
4.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
5.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 492001
6. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai CG 491001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(11) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.880 OF 2011
1.Jyoti Ram Khare S/o Shri Teeju Ram Khare Aged about 37 years, Resident at Durga-para, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur Chhatish Garh, Pin Code - 492001
2.Deepak Shrivas S/o Shri Chetram Shrivas aged about 34 years R/o Amapara, Khapra Bhatti, Near Sai Mandir, Raipur Pin Code 492001
3.Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mallu Ram Sahu aged about 29 Years R/o Ramkund Para, Near Life Birth Hospital Gangaram Nagar, Raipur Pin Code 492001
4.Manjeet Soni S/o Shri Virkar Soni aged about 29 years R/o New Shanty Nagar Road Behra Colony City Pandri Raipur C.G. 492001
5. Ravi Shripal S/o Vasudas Shripal, aged about 28 years, R/o Behind SBI Colony Durga Nagar, Shanti Nagar, Raipur CG 492001 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Aykar Bhawan, Hosangabad Road Bhopal M.P.462016
4.Chie Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
5. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 492001
6. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) Aykar Bhawan Hoshangabad Road Bhopal 462016
7. Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation Civil Line) Raipur (CG) 492001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Manish Chourasia)
(12) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.943 OF 2011
1. Indrajeet Gedam S/o Punara Gedam Aged about 36 years Resident at House No.58, Near Gulab Talour, Sharda Para Bhilai, Durg Chhatish Garh Pin Code 491001
2. Mannu Das S/o Shri Phiranta Das aged about 35 years R/o Querter No.C/3 Canera Bank Colony, Durg Naka, Durg Pin Code 491001
3.Rakesh Diwedi S/o Shesh Narayan Dewedi aged about 39 years R/o 3A Line No.14 Sector No.2, Bhilai, Durg, Chhatishgarh Pin Code 491001
4.Pawan Kumar Verma S/o Shri Ramashya Verma aged about 21 years R/o Jantani Madol Town, West-4 Ward No.1, Bhilai, Durg C.G. Pin Code - 491001 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Aykar Bhawan, Hosangabad Road Bhopal M.P.462016
4.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 492 001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 492001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
(13) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 440 OF 2012
1.Shankar Lal Sahu S/o Shri Raj Kumar Sahu Aged about 34 years, C/o Gram Ruchinda The.Pusour, District Raigarh C.G. 496001
2. Guru Prasad Namdeo S/o Shri Prahlad Prasad Namdeo aged about 26 years R/o Chandi Chowk sonar Para Raigarh (C.G.) 496001
3.Hukum Singh S/o Shri Azad Singh Singh Aged about 40 years R/o Hundi Chouk Near Gayatri Mandir Raigarh CG 496001
4.Radhi Kishan Nisad S/o Shri Yashvant Singh Nisad aged about 23 years Ward No.5, Dharam Shala Gal Raigarh CG 496001
5.Rajkumar Khapardha S/o Late Damodar Aged about 35 years R/o Nayaganj behind Itwari Bazar Raigarh CG 496001
6.Ajay Yadav S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Yadav aged about 29 years R/o Beladula Kamla Nagar Raigarh 496001
7.Satish Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Jaggnnath aged about 34 years, R/o Near Sanjay Maidan Raigarh CG 496001 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N. Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011
4.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur Chhatishgarh 492001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Bihar Bilaspur
6.Zonal Accounts Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) -462011 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Manish Chourasia)
(14) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 442 OF 2012
1.Shatruhan Yadav S/o Shri Judawan Yadav Aged about 41 years, C/o Gakul Shriwas Ramayan Chowk Tifta Bilaspur, C.G. 495001
2.Dharam Raj Patel, S/o Shri Indramani Patel aged about 30 years R/o House No.146 Mini Mata Nagar Talapara Bilaspur CG 495001
3.Prasna Singh S/o Shri Lt. Shri Govind Singhaged about 32 years R/o Near River Side, Jabdapar New Sarkanda Bilaspur 495001
4.Sanjay Kumar Samund S/o Shri Kamlu Prasad Samund aged about 31 years R/o Shri Krishna Goshala Madhuban Road Bilaspur 495001
5.Gokul Ram Verma S/o Dhani Ram Verma Aged About 26 years R/o Ram Nagar in front of Sarkand Thana Chingrajpara Bilaspur 495001
6.Vipin Kujur S/o Shri Nicolas Kujur aged about 34 years C/o Rajkumar Yadav Near Sheetlamata Mandir Talapara Bilaspur 495001
7.Dinesh Mishra S/o Shri R.K. Mishra aged about 32 years, R/o Savitri Bhawan Near Pathak Bagicha Jabdapara Sarkanda Bilaspur 495001 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N. Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011
4.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur Chhatishgarh 492001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Bihar Bilaspur
6.Zonal Accounts Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) -462011 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Manish Chourasia)
(15) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 443 OF 2012
1.Gorelal S/o Shri Latel Prasad Yadav Aged about 34 years, R/o BoudiPara Sagun Garden Ambikapur 497001
2.Rameshwr Sonwani S/o Mangal Ram aged about 30 years R/o Bhattapara Behind Hospita Ambikapur 497001
3.Mohan Lal Mahanand S/o Shri Tanguram about 42 years R/o Sheetla Ward Shakti Para Near Karbala Ambikapur 497001
4.Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Bhagirathi Samund aged about 38 years R/o Laxmipur Bilaspur Chowk Ambikapur 497001
5.Rajbeer Das S/o Late Madhu Das,Aged about 35 years R/o Christ Milan Para, Ward No.10, Namna Kala Ambikapur 479001 -Applicants (By Advocate Shri M.N. Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011
4.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur Chhatishgarh 492001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Vyapar Bihar Bilaspur 495001
6.Zonal Accounts Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) -462011 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Manish Chourasia)
(16) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 444 OF 2012
1.Vishnu Das Mahant S/o Shri C.D. Mahant Aged about 38 years, C/o M/331 Ompur Roygmar Colony P.O. Ompur Korba CG 495683
2.Hirendra Kumar Lahre S/o Shri G.R. Lahre aged about 34 years C/o M/331 Ompur Roygmar Colony P.O. Ompur Korba CG 495683
3.Smt. Meena Nayak D/o Shri Dhaninag about 40 years R/o Near River Side, Jabdapar New Korba Chhatishgarh 495683
4.Smt. Sangeeta Soni S/o Shri S.L. Soni aged About 29 years R/o Q.No. F-649, Block No.82 Shanti Kranti Nagar Oarri West Korba CG 495683
5.Naresh Kumar Yadav S/o S.L. Yadav Aged about 27 years R/o C/o M/331 Ompur Roygmar Colony P.O. Ompur Korba CG 495683
6.Tulsi Ra Khairwar S/o Shri Late K.L.Kherwar aged about 35 years C/o M/331 Ompur Roygmar Colony P.O. Ompur Korba CG 495683-Applicants (By Advocate Shri M.N. Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011
4.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur Chhatishgarh 492001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Vyapar Bihar Bilaspur 495001
6.Zonal Accounts Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Manish Chourasia)
(17) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 445 OF 2012
1.Sanyasi Rao S/o Shri Mimadri Rao Aged about 32 years, R/o Shankar Nagar Raipur CG 492001
2.Kalu Nayak S/o Late Guruji Nayak aged about 28 years R/o Bairan Bazar, Near Kundrapara Hunman Bhakt Ram Mandir Raipur 492001
3.Kumari Neema Masih,D/o Shri Johnson Masih Kripal, about 35 years R/o Noorani Chowk Raja,Talab Raipur CG 492001 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N. Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011
4.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur Chhatishgarh 492001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur Chhatishgarh 492001
6.Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Field pay unit Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur Chhatisgarh 492001
7.Zonal Account Officer Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road Opposite Maida Mill Bhopal 462011 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Manish Chourasia)
(18) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 446 OF 2012
1. Rajendra Yaduwanshi, S/o Shri D.P.Yaduwanshi, aged about 45 years, R/o Sriram Chowk, Teekrapara, Raipur, C.G.-492001
2. Ram Narayan Soni, S/o Shri Late Atma Ram Soni, aged about 49 years, R/o Nathpara Subash Nagar, Raipur,C.G.-492002 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011
4. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur Chhatishgarh 492001
5 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur, Chhatishgarh 492001
6. Zonal Account Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.K.Mishra)
(19) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 447 OF 2012
1.Manoj Kumar Soni S/o Shri Gaya Ram Soni Aged About 34 years, R/o Gram Lakhra, Post-Lakhram Thana Ratanpur, Bilaspur, C.G.-495001
2.Ravi Kumar Bais, S/o Shri Damodar Prasad Bais, aged about 33 years, R/o Shri Krishna Goshala, Madhuvan Road, Bilaspur, C.G.-495001
3.Devchandra Niemalkar, S/o Shri Uday Ram Nirmalkar, Aged about 32 years, R/o Village and post office Gadwar Thana, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur-495001
4. Romanchal Rana, S/o Shri Achuch Rana, Aged about 24 years, R/o
Ward No.04, Parijat Colony, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, C.G. 495001
5. Anil Yadav, S/o Badri Prasad Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o Udai Chowk, Katiya Para, Bilaspur, C.G.-495001
6. Sunl Dewangan, S/o Melan Ram Dewangan, aged about 33 years, R/o Baniya Para, Bilaspur, C.G.-495001
7. Vishnu Yadav, S/o Rajaram Yadav, Aged about 32 years, R/o in front of Sai Temple, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur-495001
8.Rukshna Begam, W/o late Hanif Ali, R/o Marhimai Talapara, Bilaspur C.G. -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee)
V e r s u s
1.Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011
4.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhatishgarh, 492 001
5.Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Bihar, Bilaspur
6. Zonal Account Officer, Aaykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011
7. Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv), Central Revenue Building Civil lines, Raipur, Chhatishgarh-492001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.K. Mishra)
(Date of reserving the order 29.08.2013
COMMON ORDER
By Dhirendra Mishra, JM:-
Applicants in these Original Applications (for brevity OAs) were engaged as casual labourers/ daily-wagers between 1997 and 2008. All of them through these OAs have prayed for regularisation of their services with effect from the initial date of their engagement. Some of the applicants have also prayed for quashing/setting aside/modifying impugned orders of Annexure A/(I,ii) dated 04.7.2011 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for brevity CBDT) and 25.7.2011 issued by the Office of the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, as also the instructions dated 14.3.2012 issued by the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (for brevity CCIT) for shifting of daily wagers to contract system, and tender dated 22.3.2012 for engaging service providers (Annexures A-1/c & d respectively).
2. Since the issue involved in all these OAs and the reliefs claimed by the applicants are common we are disposing of these OA by this common order. However, for the purposes of this order, reference is being made to the pleadings in OA No.440/2012 and the documents referred therein.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants in his oral as well as written arguments jointly filed, on behalf of the applicants of all these OAs, submitted that the applicants joined as casual labourers on the dates as per charts given in Para 4.1 of the OA, under the administrative control of CCIT, Raipur. The CCIT Raipur had scrutinized the cases of regularisation of casual labourers/daily-wagers and accordingly prepared a list in three parts Annexures A, B & C and the names of the applicants figure in the said lists, according to period of their engagement. The list A has been prepared of those employees who have completed 10 years of service and whose appointments were made through employment exchange, whereas list B relates to the employees who have competed 10 years of service, and list C relates to those employees who had not completed 10 years of continuous service in the CCIT, Raipur.
4. In view of para 53 of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Uma Devi (supra), the posts which would be vacant are to be filled in by regular appointment and such posts cannot be filled in by any other mode such as on contract basis, or through the appointment on contract basis. The Honble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Karnataka & others Vs. M.L.Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, has further clarified the directions given in Para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devis case and held that all persons who have worked for more than 10 years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Uma Devi) without the protection of any interim order of any Court or Tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualifications, are entitled to be considered for regularisation, and such exercise may be undertaken even beyond the period of six months, where the department had not undertaken such an exercise or had undertaken only in regard to limited few. Thus, from the above judgments of the Honble Supreme Court it is clear that the respondents were duty bound to fill in the vacant posts by process of regular appointment, and recommending and filling up the post through contractor was not permissible. However, the respondents have not considered the cases of the applicants for regularisation only on the ground that they had not completed 10 years of continuous casual labour/ as daily wager, service on 10.04.2006, whereas the intention behind para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devis case is an exception of the rule of regularisation and as such it is to be construed liberally.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Uma Devi (supra) has dealt in depth the issue regarding regularisation of services of daily rated casual labourers who were continuously engaged in the work for a significant length of time and has held that such daily rated casual labourers do not have any inherent right to claim for regularisation. Keeping in view the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in aforementioned matter, the CBDT has issued detailed instructions vide its circular dated 18.9.2008 and 18.11.2008 for undertaking the exercise of one time regularisation. In compliance of the aforesaid directions the CCIT, CCA, Bhopal had constituted a committee for the aforesaid exercise and accordingly applications in the prescribed proforma duly forwarded by the respective Head of the Departments, were called for from Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh Regions, and accordingly their cases were also scrutinized by the said committee in the light of the instructions issued by the CBDT. However, the committee did not recommend regularisation of any daily rated casual labourers on the ground that none of the applicants fulfill the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the instructions of the CBDT which was issued in view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Uma Devis case. From the pleading in the OAs it would be evident that none of the applicants in these OAs had completed 10 years of continuous service as casual labourers as on 10.04.2006 and thus they were not eligible for consideration for regularisation as a one time measure as directed by the Honble Supreme Court.
6. So far as the applicants challenge to the demi-official letter dated 14.7.2011 and the letter dated 25.7.2011 and tender notice and subsequent instructions is concerned, the issue has already been considered and decided by this Tribunal in OA 746/2011 and challenge to the said action of the respondents, has been dismissed by this Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Honble High Court in Writ Petition No. 22083/2012 on 11.02.2013.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
8. Indisputably none of the applicants had completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 as daily rated casual labourers and, therefore, they were not entitled for consideration for regularisation as per directions given in para 53 of the order in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
9. So far as applicants challenge to the action of the respondents vide Annexures A-1/(a to d), is concerned, the CBDT, in view of the DOPTs guidelines, prohibited engaging persons on daily wages for attending the work of regular nature, like data entry, typing, cleaning, security etc. Further referring to GFR 178 it has been directed to outsource services like data entry, typing, cleaning, security on contract without employing casual labourers individually for this purpose. In view of the above directions, the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts of the Income Tax Department, has directed all concerned that whenever need arises, as per provision of GFR 178, the field officers should outsource the services like data entry operator, typing, cleaning, security on contract without employing contingent worker individually for the purpose, and accordingly tenders have been issued for engaging service providers vide Annexure A-1d. The challenge to the above course of action has already been rejected by this Tribunal in OA No.746/2011, which has been duly affirmed by the Honble High Court in Writ Petition No. 22083/2012 on 11.02.2013.
10. The above issues have already been considered at length by this Tribunal by separate orders of even date in OA No.1091/2010 (Sushil Kumar Karare Vs. Union of India an others) and other connected matters, and in OA No.117 of 2012 (Gaya Prasad and others Vs. Union of India and others) and other connected matters, which were filed at the instance of the daily rated casual labourers of the same department in which the present applicants are working. In the matters of Gaya Prasad (supra) this Tribunal has held as under:
(9). We find that aforementioned OA No.746/2011 was also filed for quashing of demi official letter dated 4.7.2011 addressed by the CBDT and consequential order dated 25.07.2011 passed in pursuance of the above demi official letter dated 4.7.2011. The applicants therein had also prayed for directing the respondents to examine the possibility of regularising their services or for granting them temporary status. The Original Application No.746/2011 was dismissed by this Tribunal on 26.9.2012 with an observation that the impugned decision is a policy decision which is in consonance with GFR 178 and same is not open to challenge and that too at the instance of the applicants only on the ground that aforesaid decision is likely to be enforced retrospectively which may affect their employment and they may be removed from service. The said decision of this Tribunal was further affirmed by the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and the Writ Petition against the above order was dismissed on 11.02.2013 with the following observations:
The petitioners despite opportunities have not filed their appointment orders. The respondents have stated that no appointment orders have been issued to the petitioners. The nature of relationship of the petitioners with the respondents, particularly regarding terms and conditions of their service, is therefore not clear. Apparently, the petitioners have no right to stop the respondents from outsourcing their certain services in the interest of economy and efficiency. The respondents submit that there is no bar for the contractor if he decides to appoint the petitioners for carrying out the services outsourced. For these reasons we find no illegality in the impugned order and merit in the present petition.
11. In the matters of Sushil Kumar Karare (supra) the Tribunal has held as under:
(10) The issue of regularisation has already been considered at length by this Tribunal in OA No.1091 of 2010 (Sushil Kumar Karare Vs. Union of India and others) and other connected matters, at the instance of the daily rated casual labourers of the same department in which the present applicants are working. Relevant paragraphs of the said decision read thus:
(13) The issue of absorption/regularisation of temporarily engaged casual/ daily rated employees has been extensively dealt with by the Constitution Bench of Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Uma Devi (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the above judgment for the purposes of the issue involved in this Original Application are reproduced as under:
44. The concept of equal pay for equal work is different from the concept of conferring permanency on those who have been appointed on ad hoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process of selection as envisaged by the rules. This Court has in various decisions applied the principle of equal pay for equal work and has laid down the parameters for the application of that principle. The decisions are rested on the concept of equality enshrined in our Constitution in the light of the directive principles in that behalf. But the acceptance of that principle cannot lead to a position where the court could direct that appointments made without following the due procedure established by law, be deemed permanent or issue directions to treat them as permanent. Doing so, would be negation of the principle of equality of opportunity. The power to make an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before this Court, would not normally be used for giving the go-by to the procedure established by law in the matter of public employment. Take the situation arising in the cases before us from the State of Karnataka. Therein, after Dharwad decision(1990)2 SCC 396 the Government had issued repeated directions and mandatory orders that no temporary or ad hoc employment or engagement be given. Some of the authorities and departments had ignored those directions or defied those directions and had continued to give employment, specifically interdicted by the orders issued by the executive. Some of the appointing officers have even been punished for their defiance. It would not be just or proper to pass an order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution permitting those persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice according to law and though it would be open to this Court to mould the relief, this Court would not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an illegality.
45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargainnot at arm's lengthsince he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not (sic) one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
46. Learned Senior Counsel for some of the respondents argued that on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the employees, especially of the Commercial Taxes Department, should be directed to be regularised since the decisions in Dharwad, (1990) 2 SCC 396 Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 Jacob (1991) 1 SCC 28 and Gujarat Agricultural University (2001) 3 SCC 574 and the like, have given rise to an expectation in them that their services would also be regularised. The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn. [See Lord Diplock in Council for Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil Service 1985 AC 374, National Buildings Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan (1998) 7 SCC 66 and Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 3 SCC 485] There is no case that any assurance was given by the Government or the department concerned while making the appointment on daily wages that the status conferred on him will not be withdrawn until some rational reason comes into existence for withdrawing it. The very engagement was against the constitutional scheme. Though, the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes Department sought to get the appointments made permanent, there is no case that at the time of appointment any promise was held out. No such promise could also have been held out in view of the circulars and directives issued by the Government after Dharwad decision (supra). Though, there is a case that the State had made regularisations in the past of similarly situated employees, the fact remains that such regularisations were done only pursuant to judicial directions, either of the Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some cases by this Court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot enable the employees to claim that they must be made permanent or they must be regularised in the service though they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment. The fact that in certain cases the court had directed regularisation of the employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation. The argument if accepted would also run counter to the constitutional mandate. The argument in that behalf has therefore to be rejected.
47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.
48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the department concerned on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.
(14) However, in paragraph 53 of the judgment it has been clarified that the cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore and another Vs. S.V.Narayanappa AIR 1967 SC 1071 and R.N.Nanjundappa Vs. T.Thimmiah & another (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N.Nagarajan & others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (1979) 4 SCC 507, of duly qualified persons against duly sanctioned post have been made, and such employees have worked for 10 years or more, without intervention of the orders of the court or of the Tribunals, the Union of India, the State Government and their instrumentalities have been directed to take steps to regularise, as a one time measures, the services of such irregularly appointed persons. Para 53 of the said order reads thus:
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa , AIR 1967 SC 1071 R.N. Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan (1979)4 SCC 507,and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
(15) In paragraph 54 in Uma Devis case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has already clarified that all those decisions, which run counter to the principle settled in Uma Devis case, or in which directions running counter to what has been held in the decision, shall stand denuded of their status as precedents.
(16) In the matters of Uma Devi (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has strongly disapproved absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual daily-wage or ad hoc employees appointed/ recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment. It has been observed that the Supreme Court and High Courts should not issue such directions unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of constitutional scheme, as a wide power under the Constitution to the superior courts are not to be indented to be used for issuance of such directions, certain to defeat the concept of social justice, equal opportunity for all and the constitutional scheme of public employment. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of a order of the court under litigious employment or had been continued beyond the term of his appointment by the State or its instrumentalities, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in service, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. However, an exception has been carved out in para 53 of the judgment and the Union and the Sate Governments and their instrumentalities have been directed to set in motion the process for regular recruitment in cases where temporary or daily-wagers were employed against vacant sanctioned posts, and in cases of irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons against duly sanctioned vacant posts, who had continued to work for ten years or more, without the intervention of the orders of the courts or tribunals were to be considered for regularisation, within six months of the date of judgment as a one time measure.
(17) Thus from the above it is evident that it was the duty of the employee as also of the department, who was responsible to appoint and continue the said employee as a contractual/casual/daily wager/ad hoc/temporary employee for a long period, to establish by producing relevant documents that such appointment was against the vacant posts, and that the employee was possessing the necessary qualification, for the post against which he was recruited under the rules, and fulfills other eligibility criteria such as age, caste, etc., that the engagement was as per constitutional scheme by inviting applications through wide publications or his name was duly sponsored by the employment exchange.
12. Considering that the issues raised by the applicants in these OAs have already been considered and rejected by this Tribunal in the matters of Sushil Kumar Karare (supra) and Gaya Prasad (supra) as mentioned above, we do not find any merits in the present OAs and therefore, these OAs are also liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, all these OAs are dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (Dhirendra Mishra) Administrative Member Judicial Member rkv 24 Sub: casual labourers regularisation OAs 393-395,397,713-716,727,729,880 & 943/2011, and 440,442-447/2012 Page 24 of 25