Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Mohan Rao vs Deputy Commissioner on 22 May, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
(Circuit Sitting at Sri Vijaya Puram)
No.O.A.351/1638/2017/AN Date of hearing : 01.05.2025
Date of order : 22.05.2025
Present :Hon'ble Mrs. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
1. Shri Mohan Rao, S/o Appa Rao,
C/o T. Laxmi Narayan, Sony Tailors,
Banbooflat, South Andaman-744107;
2. Shri Mohsin, S/o Hassan Koya, R/o
Oceanica Building, Near Civil Supply
Godown, Foreshore Road, Haddo,
Port Blair - 744102;
3. Shri E. Lokanathan, S/o E. Thathaiah,
R/o Shadipur, Port Blair;
4. Shri Manick Chandra Das, S/o
Shri Ramani Chandra Das,
C/o Smti Saramma, Calicut Village,
Port Blair - 744105;
5. Shri B. Terepathi Rao,
S/o B. Krishna Murthy, C/o Tirupathi
Rao, DC Office, Port Blair-744101;
6. Shri Bisnu Biswas, S/o Shri Ramesh
Biswas, R/o Chouldhari, South Andaman
...........Applicants
- VERSUS-
1. Union of India Service through the
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Affairs,North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi -110 001;
2. The Lt. Governor, A&N Islands,
Raj Niwas, Port Blair - 744101;
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1,
SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d,
PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=
SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
BANDYOPADHYAY
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
3. The Chief Secretary, A&N
Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair;
4. The Secretary (Revenue), A&N
Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair;
5. The Deputy Commissioner, South
Andaman, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Port Blair;
6. The Assistant Secretary (Revenue),
A&N Administration, Secretariat,
Port Blair
.....Respondents
For the applicant : Ms. Anjili Nag, counsel
For the respondents : Dr. D. Chowdhury, counsel
ORDER
Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member This O.A. has been preferred under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(I) To examine the case of applicants by the respondents and to pass appropriate order considering their qualifying in the written test, 4 years service rendered by them in the past and they became overage while serving the department;
(I)(a) Leave be granted to move this original application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1985 since the cause of action and the relief prayed are similar and same;
(II) To pass an order directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the applicants for regularization/absorption under respondent No.5 while taking into consideration that the applicants are still performing and discharging the duties under the respondents as in the capacity of daily rated mazdoor."
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the Learned Counsel applicant in the instant O.A. are as under:-
(a) The applicants in the instant O.A. applied for the posts of Chainman/Process Server/Peon pursuant to Employment Notices published in the year 2008 and 2009 by the respondent authorities. As Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 per the applicants, written test for the said posts was conducted on 25.01.2009 and the candidates including the applicants, who qualified in the written test were called for interview conducted on 31.01.2009, 01.02.2009 and 02.02.2009 respectively. Thereafter the applicant No.1 and 4 were appointed to the posts of Chainman purely on temporary basis in the scale of Pay of Rs.4440-7440 vide Order dated 05.02.2009(Annexure A/1 to the O.A.). Applicant No. 3 and 5 were also appointed to the same posts vide Order dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure R/4 to Reply). Applicant No.2 and 6 were appointed as Process Server under the respondents. The applicants were also imparted training for upgradation of their posts from Group 'D' to Group 'C' and after successful completion of training their Grade Pay was enhanced.
(b) Learned Counsel for the applicant has stated that one of the candidates, namely, Shri K. Nizamuddin who had appeared in the written test and interview, scored lower marks in the interview and was not given employment. He had, therefore, moved this Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) by filing O.A.No.124/AN/2010, which was disposed of vide Order dated 24.08.2012 (Annexure A/2), whereby the earlier appointment Orders dated 05.02.2009 and 04.06.2009 were set aside and the respondents were directed to re-advertise the posts and fill up the same in accordance with Recruitment Rules.
(c) Shri K. Nizamuddin, the applicant in O.A.No.124/AN/2010 and the applicants in the instant O.A. approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) vide W.P.C.T.No.604 of 2012 (K. Nizamuddin Vs. Union of India & Others) followed by W.P.C.T.No.607 of 2012 (Shri Mohsin and Another Vs. Union of Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 India & Others, W.P.C.T.No.608 of 2012 (Shri Mohan Rao & Others Vs. Union of India & Others), W.P.C.T.No.609 of 2012 (Miss Zeenath Begum Vs. Union of India & Others) and W.P.C.T.No.610 of 2012 (Shri Bharati Bhusan Xess Vs. Union of India & Others), which were decided vide a common Order dated 05.04.2013 (Annexure A/3 to the O.A.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) held as follows:-
"Accordingly we are of the view that so far as quashing of the appointment order dated 05.02.2009 and 04.06.2009 is concerned, the same is quite justified, but so far as the re-advertisement is concerned, the same cannot be sustained."
It was further ordered by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair ) that "the appointing authorities are directed to proceed with the process of selection of the candidates from the stage after completion of the written test and they shall adhere to the rules framed for the recruitment to the post in question."
(d) Immediately after passing of the aforesaid Order by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) dated 05.04.2013, the respondents had terminated the services of the applicants vide Orders dated 22.07.2013( Annexure A/4 collectively). Against the Order of the Hon'ble High Court, Shri Bisnu Biswas (Applicant No.6 in this O.A.) along with Others had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.4255-58 of 2014, wherein vide Order dated 02.01.2014 (Annexure A/5 to the O.A.) it was held by the Apex Court that :-
".......the fact that today the so called selected candidates are not in employment is also a relevant factor to decide the case finally. If the whole selection is scraped most of the candidates would be ineligible at least in respect of age as the advertisement was issued more than 06 years ago. Thus, in the fact of this case the direction of the High Court to continue with the selection process from the point it stood vitiated does not require interference."
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 Based on the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 9 (nine) candidates were appointed from the merit list of written test out of which 6 (six) candidates were appointed against the posts of Chainman, 2 (two) candidates were appointed against the posts of Process Server and 1(one) was appointed against the post of Peon vide Order dated 27.06.2014(Annexure A/6 to the O.A.).
(e) Learned Counsel for applicants has averred that the after the advertisement for 9 posts in the year 2009, a good number of posts had fallen vacant under the respondents, out of which, 18 posts were of Chainman, 5 posts were of Process Server and 7 posts were for Peon.
In support of his statement, Learned Counsel for the applicant has annexed with the O.A. a communication dated 10.10.2014 regarding Status on vacancy position and action taken thereon, marked as Annexure A/7. However, the applicants made representations to the Chief Secretary and also the Lieutenant Governor, A&N Administration for their reinstatement/reappointment in service but to no avail. Therefore, the applicants had approached this Tribunal (Circuit Sitting at Port Blair) by filing O.A.No.351/166/AN/2014, which was disposed of vide Order dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure A/9 to the O.A.). Pursuant to the said order of this Tribunal, the Respondent No.5 engaged the applicants on daily basis vide Order dated 04.06.2015 (Annexure A/10 to the O.A.).
(f) Thereafter applicants have prayed for their regularization and absorption by way of making representations to the authorities concerned on the basis of their unblemished services rendered to Andaman and Nicobar Administration earlier, but the Respondent No.5 informed the Applicant No.6 vide letter dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 A/13 to the O.A.) that regular appointment against the existing vacancies can be made by making advertisement and adopting selection in terms of the Recruitment Rules. Aggrieved by such action of the respondents, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by filing the instant O.A.
3. Per contra, the respondents have filed their written reply denying the claim of the applicant. Relying on the reply, Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted as under:-
(a) The applicants in the instant O.A. were initially selected and appointed to the posts of Chainman, Process Server and Peon under the respondents in the year 2009 on temporary basis. A litigation was filed by one, Shri K. Nizamuddin before this Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in O.A.No.124/AN/2010 challenging the selection of the applicants, which was disposed of on 24.08.2012, whereby appointment orders dated 05.02.2009 and 04.06.2009 were quashed and direction was given to re-advertise the posts and fill up the same strictly as per the Recruitment Rules. Challenging the said order of this Tribunal, a Writ Petition was filed by Shri K. Nizamuddin before the Hon'ble High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) i.e. W.P.C.T.No.604 of 2012. The applicants have also filed W.P.CTs No. 607, 608, 609 and 610 of 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair). All these cases were heard together and decided vide a common Order dated 05.04.2013 and pursuant to the said order, the applicants were terminated from service. Thereafter applicants in the instant O.A. had approached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but could not get a favourable order. However, taking into consideration the services rendered by them and also in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 No.4255-58 of 2014 dated 02.04.2014, the applicants were engaged as Daily Rated Mazdoors vide Order dated 04.06.2015.
(b) It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the respondents that the claim of the applicants for regularization/absorption could not be entertained without adopting proper selection process as per the Recruitment Rules. It is further stated by the Learned Counsel for the respondents that the matter was taken up to the competent authority, who opined that it would not be proper to give them regular appointment without making advertisement. This decision was duly intimated to one of the applicants in the instant O.A., Shri Bishnu Biwas (Applicant No.6) vide letter dated 17.03 2016. However, vide said letter dated 17.03.2016, the applicants were requested to apply for the posts as and when advertisements would be published by the Administration.
Therefore, there is no fault on the part of the respondents and the claim of the applicant for regularization is baseless, frivolous and untenable under the law.
4. The applicants have filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, wherein they have stated that though the selection of the applicants was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court, they were further appointed as Daily Rated Mazdoors by the respondents in the year 2015 on the basis of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.4255-58 of 2014 dated 02.04.2014, considering their unblemished service and efficiency. The applicants have further stated in the rejoinder that they have been serving the department w.e.f. 2009 till date. They have averred that they had successfully completed the training given by the authorities. It is stated by the applicants that due to litigations filed by one, K. Nizamuddin, they were terminated from service w.e.f. 22.07.2013 but again engaged as Daily Rated Mazdoors in the year 2015 and thus they had completed more than 10 years of service under the respondents as on the date of filing of the Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 rejoinder (verified in October, 2021), therefore, they should be regularized for the interest of justice.
5. We have considered the rival contentions of both sides and perused the pleadings and record.
6. It transpires from the record that the applicants were initially appointed to the posts of Chainman and Process Server under the respondents in the year 2009 on temporary basis and were allowed a fixed scale of pay for the posts against which they were appointed. Thereafter, one, Shri K. Nizamuddin had challenged their selection process before this Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) by way of filing O.A.No.124/AN/2010 on the ground that there was no provision for interview. However, 50 marks for written examination and 50 marks for interview were fixed subsequently. As per the applicant in the said O.A., the candidates who got lesser marks in the written examination were given good marks in interview to help them to clear the selection test. The said O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) vide Order dated 24.08.2012. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"15. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that further vacancies had come to light during the pendency of the recruitment process. However, it would not be necessary to enter into the merits of this matter since we have already held that by prescribing an interview test, the respondents have clearly violated the recruitment rules. We, therefore, allow the OA and quash the appointment orders dated 05-02- 2009 and 04-06-2009. The posts should be re-advertised and posts filled up strictly as per recruitment rules. OA is allowed. No costs."
7. Thereafter, Shri K. Nizamuddin had challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) by filing W.P.C.T.No. 604. The applicants in the instant O.A. also approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) by filing W.P.C.Ts No. 607, 608, 609 and 610 respectively. All these Writ Petitions were heard Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 together and decided vide a common Order dated 05.04.2013. In respect of the W.P.C.T.No. 604 of 2012, the following order was passed :-
" ..........So far as the written test is concerned we find that it is not all a case of either of the parties that there was an illegality in the matter of holding the written test. So the order of the learned Tribunal for re- advertisement for the entire selection process, in our view, cannot be sustained. The appointing authorities should be directed to proceed with the selection process from the stage of the written test. They shall be directed to adhere to the rules that were advertised for the recruitment.
The question is, thus, answered. Accordingly, we are of the view that this application should be allowed and the order of the learned Tribunal should be modified to the extent indicated above. The application is, therefore, allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 24.8.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.124/AN/2010, whereby the learned Tribunal had directed the appointing authorities to re-advertise the posts-in-question is hereby set aside and quashed. The appointing authorities are directed to proceed with the process of selection of the candidates from the stage after the completion of the written test and they shall adhere to the rules framed for the recruitment to the posts-in-question.
There will be no order as to costs."
In respect of W.P.C.Ts No.607, 608, 609 and 610 of 2012 it has been ordered that:-
"On the self same reasoning as indicated above, these applications are allowed only to the extent as indicated in WPCT No.604 of 2012. The prayer for other reliefs is hereby refused."
8. After passing of the aforesaid order by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair), the applicants were terminated from service w.e.f. 22.07.2013 as they were not found successful in the written examination. Challenging the aforesaid Order of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) the applicants had filed an SLP No.4255-58 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein vide Order dated 02.04.2014, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed as under:-
"20. In the instant case, the rules of the game had been changed after conducting the written test and admittedly not at the stage of initiation of the selection process. The marks allocated for the oral interview had been the same as for written test i.e. 50% for each. The manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The candidate who secured 47 marks out of 50 in the written test had been given only 20 marks in the interview while large number of candidates got equal marks in the interview as in the written examination. Candidates who secured 34 marks in the written examination was given 45 marks in the interview. Similarly, another candidate who secured 36 marks in the written examination was awarded 45 marks in the interview. The Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 fact that today the so called selected candidates are not in employment is also a relevant factor to decide the case finally. If the whole selection is scraped most of the candidates would be ineligible at least in respect of age as the advertisement was issued more than 06 years ago.
Thus, in the fact of this case the direction of the High Court to continue with the selection process from the point it stood vitiated does not require interference."
9. Thereafter, the applicants had filed another case before this Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) being O.A.No.351/166/AN/2014 on the ground that they had worked under the respondents for more than 4 years and became overage, therefore, appropriate orders should be passed by taking into consideration their difficulties. This Tribunal vide Order dated 23.12.2024 ordered as follows:-
"4. We are afraid as the Apex Court's order binds us and has allowed the selection to be continued with from the point it stood vitiated which has resulted in termination of the present applicant, no direction, no direction can be issued upon the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for re-instatement. However, since a representation has been made on the ground that he has crossed the maximum age for consideration and the financial condition has worsened and it would affect the education of the children, we leave it to the wisdom of the authorities to grant appropriate benefits to the present applicant as compensation if possible by engaging the applicant on daily rated basis.
5. The OA is accordingly disposed of. No order is passed as to costs."
Pursuant to the aforesaid Order of this Tribunal dated 23.12.2024, the applicants were reengaged in service by the respondents as Daily Rated Mazdoors vide Order dated 04.06.2015(Annexure A/10 to the O.A.) As per the applicants, they are working in the department till date.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in case of Shripal& Another Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024) dated 31.01.2025 while dealing with the issue of regularization, considered the earlier judgments in Vinod Kumar and Others Etc. Vs. Union of India & Others [(2024)1 SCR 1230], Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 etc.) dated 20th December, 2024 and Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006)4 SCC 1] and opined that if an employee works continuously without any break in a temporary capacity for a long time, it means that his job is perennial in nature and such employee cannot be denied Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 regularization under the shield of the judgment in Uma Devi(supra)which distinguishes the appointments between regular and irregular. As per the judgment of Shripal (supra), irregular appointees are eligible for regularization if they fulfill certain conditions.
11. In this respect, it would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 etc.) dated 20th December, 2024, which reads as under:-
"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 employmentarrangements, 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 labeled 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 dismissed employees are frequently 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:Temporaryemployees 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.Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 • 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."
12. In a recent judgment dated 04.02.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Puducherry & Another Vs. K. Velajagan & Others [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2868/2018] has dealt with a similar issue of regularization of Lecturers in Polytechnic College and has opined inter alia as under:-
"9. Be that as it may, neither the said 15 incumbent lecturers nor the respondents should suffer because of the internal squabble between the petitioners and the UPSC. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi(3) [(2006)4 SCC 1], as held in a recent decision of this Court in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [(2025)Live Law SC 153] cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularization.
10. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, meaning thereby that the claims of respondents 1 to 3 for regularization are required to be considered in the light of the decision given by the Tribunal, since affirmed by the High Court..........."
13. In the instant case, the applicants have claimed that they had worked in the department since 2009 to 21.07.2013 and thereafter have been working under the respondents since 2015 till date. Therefore, it is clear that their job is perennial in nature. There is no interim order in this case. It is further noted that after passing of the aforementioned Order dated 02.04.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicants had approached this Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) by filing Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 O.A.No.351/166/AN/2014, wherein no direction has been given by the Tribunal to appoint them. This Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) vide Order dated 23.12.2024 (quoted above) had left the matter to the wisdom of the authorities to grant appropriate benefits to the present applicants as compensation, if possible by engaging them on daily rated basis. Therefore, the respondents on their own volition engaged the applicant as Daily Rated Mazdoors vide Order dated 04.06.2015 and as per the applicants, they are continuing in service till date, which has not been denied by the respondents in their reply.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the recent judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted supra, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants for regularization in service w.e.f. 04.06.2015 as per rules with due consideration of the fact that they have been performing perennial nature of duties w.e.f. 2015, in case they are still continuing in service. The respondents are further directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard and communicate the decision to the applicants within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the period of their earlier service before 2015 shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of regularization since they were found unsuccessful in the written examination.
15. With the above observations and directions, the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Anindo Majumdar) (UrmitaDatta (Sen)
AdministrativeMember Judicial Member
Sb
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, SOMA Phone=248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN= SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.02 13:10:37+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0