Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Sukendra Kumar vs Union Of India Through on 7 July, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH MA 20/2008 IN OA 1930/2004 New Delhi, this the 07th day of July 2008 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) Sh. Sukendra Kumar S/o Sh. Rohtas Kumar, C/o Shri Gyanvir Singh, R/o C-186, Old Seema Puri, Delhi Applicant (By Advocate Shri T.D. Yadav) VERSUS 1. Union of India through Secretary, M/o Finance, Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi 2. The Commissioner (Hqrs.) Central Excise & Customs, Commissionerate, Meerut Respondents (By Advocate Shri R.N. Singh for Shri R.V. Sinha) O R D E R (ORAL)
Applicant has filed present MA 20/2008 in OA 1930/2004 under Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 with a prayer that respondents be directed to reengage the applicant as daily wager against Group D post.
2. In the MA, applicant has stated vacancies are available for Group D post and respondents are engaging outsiders and juniors viz. Rajesh, Ramesh Kumar and Rajeev Tandon in violation of order dated 11.8.2004 passed in OA 1930/2004. Respondents are duty bound to give preference to applicant over outsiders and juniors whenever vacancies are available.
3. Respondents have denied these allegations. They have explained that there is a ban on engagement of casual labourer in view of C.B.E.C. letter F.No.A-12034/53/2002-Ad.III (B) dated 26.11.2002. Earlier applicant was informed by the Joint Commissioner (P&V), Central Excise, Meerut-I vide order dated 30.4.2004 passed in compliance of order dated 16.2.2004 of this Honble Tribunal on the OA No.394/2004 that there is no more work in this Commissionerate, as such, the applicant cannot be engaged as the casual worker and cannot be regularized as T.S. in pursuance of instructions laid down in para 2.1(iii) of DP&AR O.M. No.49024/19/84-Estt.(C) dated 26.10.1984 and para 2(a) of the Department of Personnel & Training O.M. No.49014/86-Estt(C) dated 07.06.1988. Work for which no regular posts have been created/ sanctioned are to be outsourced through service providers/ contractors after following the procedure prescribed in the GFRs. The payments of such outsourcing through the service providers is to be done from the provisions under Contingent Office Expenditure and not from wages as far the DOP&Ts OM issued vide letter No.51016/2/90-Estt(C) dated 10.9.1993 and CBECs order F.No.A-12034/53/2002-Ad.III(B) dated 26.11.2002. At present, no casual labour has been hired/working in the office of the respondents. Further the claim of the applicant that his juniors have been engaged on casual basis is clearly wrong and an attempt to mislead this Honble Tribunal. The respondents have only been outsourcing certain services as and when required through a contractor. The contractor in turn hires people to provide services. It is reiterated that the respondents have neither engaged as of now nor can engage casual labourers in view of the ban orders mentioned above. They have further submitted that out of the total number of vacancies that arose in the Group D cadre, 2/3rd had to be filled by regularization of existing Casual Labours with Temporary Status as per DOP&T O.M. No.51016/2/10-Estt.(C) dated 10.9.1993. The balance 1/3rd have to be filled by direct recruitment. As Honble Tribunal is aware, in direct recruitment, selection is on merits as per rules, no preferences can be given to any individual/group of individuals. Applicant was free to apply against the 10 vacancies advertised by the Department for direct recruitment in the Employment News/ Rozgar Samachar for the post of Sepoys. These vacancies were openly advertised for widest possible dissemination. Moreover, the applicant has got no legal or constitutional right either to continue in service of the respondents or to be regularized contrary to the recruitment rules as held by the Honble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. They have thus prayed that MA may be rejected.
4. I have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings. Perusal of the order dated 11.8.2004 shows that applicant had earlier filed OA 394/2004 which was disposed of on 16.2.2004 by directing the respondents to pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, respondents had passed order dated 30.4.2004 explaining therein that there was no work of Casual Labour, as such, applicant cannot be engaged. This order was noted and it was observed there appears to be no further ground on which OA can be considered. However since applicant had stated work is still available, direction was given at the admission stage itself without even putting the respondents on notice, to consider his request for reengagement subject to work being available.
5. It is thus seen that there was no direction to give preference to the applicant over outsiders and juniors as is being suggested by the applicant in his MA in spite of categorical statement having been made by the applicant that juniors are still continuing and have been given benefit of temporary status also, therefore, there is no new cause of action for the applicant to approach this Tribunal. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a list prepared on 11.12.2002 by respondents of temporary status holders but it is not understood how applicant can compare himself with those persons because he was not even granted temporary status. In fact respondents have stated categorically that they have not engaged any casual labour and are getting the urgent work through service providers. They have also explained that 1/3rd vacancies were required to be filled through direct recruitment and applicant could have been considered against those vacancies only if he had applied for it.
6. I would agree with the respondents that since direction was only to consider him as a casual labour, he gets no right against direct recruitment vacancies. In fact no cause of action has arisen in favour of applicant to file this MA.
7. In view of above, I find no merit in the MA. The same is accordingly rejected.
(Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (J) /gkk/