Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
S Mallikarjuna vs Department Of Posts on 25 February, 2025
1
O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOs.170/00269/2024
Order reserved on : 4.2.2025
Date of Order: 25.02.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
S. Mallikarjuna,
S/o Shivanna,
Aged:45 years,
Working as Part Time Casual Labour
At Challakere Main Post office,
Residing at Durgavara village,
Challakere Taluk,
Chitradurga District-577537 ......Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri.P.Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Department of post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi 110001.
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle, Bangalore-560001
3. Post Master General, S.K. Region,
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.02.25
16:34:23+05'30'
2
O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Bangalore-560001.
4. The Superintendent of Post offices,
Chitradurga Division,
Chitradurga-577501 .....Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.S Prakash Shetty for R1 to 4)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
" (a) To call for the records pertaining to denial of regularization/appointment of applicant as MTS since 1993/2018;
(b) Quash the O/O superintendent of Post Offices, Chitradurga Dn, Chitradurga-577 501 letter No.CTA/B2/CL/Dlgs/dated 2.2.2024 Annexure A26 issued by respondent No.4.
(c) Consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant, in accordance with the provisions of RRs of MTS vide Department of Posts, Gazette Notification GSR 781(E) Dated 16.8.2018 Annexure A12 amendment to RRS of MTS notified vide Department of Posts, Gazette Notification No.GSR 619/E/dated 30.8.2021 vide Annexure-A 21.
(d) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 3 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(a) to 5(h) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case as mentioned by the applicant are that he was engaged as Part Time Casual Labour (PTCL) at Challakere Post Office under the Recruiting Unit of Respondent No 4 with effect from 02.06.1993 after sponsored through Employment Exchange and he is continuously working till now as such. Though his duty hours fixed is only for four hours daily but he is being compelled to work at post office from Morning to Evening exceeding 12 hours daily. The Applicant is matriculated and also physically handicapped with more than 40% disability. The Applicant was irregularly/arbitrarily terminated on 19.01.2011 and was subsequently reinstated on 06.01.2008 with consequential benefits based on orders dated 10.03.2016 passed by this Hon'ble CAT in OA No 1286/2015 and Hon'ble High Court Bengaluru orders dated 23.01.2017 passed in WP 60075/2016 read with orders dated 10.01.2018 passed by this Tribunal in CP No 170/121/2017. Thus, the Applicant asserts that he is working continuously as PTCL since 02.06.1993 becoming eligible for regularization as MTS in all respects.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 4 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The applicant further asserts that the Department of Posts (MTS) Recruitment Rules 2018 were published in the official gazette on 16.08.2018 by making provision for regularisation of casual labourers as MTS among 25% vacancies. These MTS RRs were further amended vide official gazette dated 30.08.2023 by making provision for regularisation of casual labourers as MTS among 100% vacancies. The applicant asserts that there are no other temporary status/full-time/part-time casual labours available in the Recruiting Division (Respondent No 4) working continuously since 01.09.1993 except the applicant who is alone eligible in all respects and working as eligible Part Time Casual Labour with effect from 02.06.1993 in the said recruiting unit/Division continuously.
4. The applicant further asserts that in similar and identical case of Shri G. Mallesh, the then PTCL Koramangala Post Office working since 02.08.193 was regularized as MTS based on this Hon'ble CAT orders dated 31.07.2008 in OA No 170/854/2012. In similar and identical case of Sri YG Manjunath, the then PTCL Banashankari I stage PO, Bengaluru working since 25.05.1992 was also regularized as MTS based on this Hon'ble CAT orders dated 09.01.2013 in OA NO 170/854/2012 read with Hon'ble High Court Bengaluru orders SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 5 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE dated 19.04.2014 in WP No 18219/2014. He further asserts that in similar and identical case, one Shri M Hanumanth, PTCL PSD Arasikere was also regularized and appointed as MTS on 03.09.2019 without any Hon'ble Court orders.
5. The applicant further submits that in an exactly similar and identical case of the recent judgment dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No 3398/2024(vide Annexure-A27), It was decided in favour of PTCL with a cost of Rs.10 lakhs to Govt. for frivolous litigation for 22 years. Though the Applicant has been requesting the authorities repeatedly since 17.11.2008 and even on the introduction of RRs of MTS of 2018 for regularization and appointing him as MTS, it was rejected on 02.02.2024. The poor Applicant (who is physically handicapped) is being compelled and harassed to get the fruits of the regularization scheme of government for all these 30 years on frivolous grounds. Hence the applicant has filed the O.A. before this Tribunal praying for the afore-mentioned reliefs.
6. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement. No rejoinder has been filed.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 6 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
7. The case came up for final hearing on 4.2.2025. Shri.P.Kamalesan for the applicant and Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for the respondents were present and heard.
8. We have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions.
9. Let us examine the grounds of this O.A. one by one as made out in paragraph 5 of this Original Application. 10 In paragraph 5(a), the applicant submits that the action of the Respondent authorities denying regularization and appointment of Applicant as MTS under regularization scheme 1993 or under 25%/100% casual labour quota is illegal, arbitrary and against provisions of statutory regularization scheme 1993/ Recruitment Rules of MTS 2018 of the department of Post.
This mentions two different grounds although the plea is not supported by the facts of the case in the mentioned grounds. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 7 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
11. Let us examine the concerned provisions in the light of submission of the respondents in paragraph 25 of the reply statement regarding para 5(a) of the O.A.
12. The respondents say that as per Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, produced as Annexure-R10, vide Para-4(i) it is stated that 'Temporary Status' would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM (01.09.1993) and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of 240 days (206 days in case of offices observing five days week). As such applicant does not fall under Rule-3 of Department of Posts (Multi-Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2018, submitted as Annexure-A12, as required under Column-10, points (i), (ii) and (iii) of the schedule of Annexure-A12, which states as:
(i) By appointment of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status on the basis of seniority-
cum-fitness, failing which;
(ii) By appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before the 1st September, 1993 working for eight hours in a day, on the basis of seniority- cum-fitness, failing which;
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 8 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(iii) By appointment of part-time Casual Labourers, engaged on or before the 1st September, 1993, on the basis of seniority-cum- fitness failing which;
(iv) By direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination restricted to the Gramin Dak Sevaks of all Divisions of the Circle, who have worked regularly for three years in that capacity, as on the 1st day of January of the year to which the vacancy(ies) belong to or as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time, failing which;
(v) By direct recruitment from the open market as per the scheme circulated by the Department of Posts from time to time.
13. The respondents emphatically submit that the DPC members after going through all merits, decided not to consider the applicant for the post of MTS during the DPC meetings held on 05.10.2020 and 22.07.2021 vide Annexure R-12 & R-13 respectively.
14. Let us examine, in light of this statement, the rules - Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993 which is filed as Annexure R-11, which reads the following:
"1. This scheme shall be called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 9 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
2. This Scheme will come into force w.e.f 1.9.1993.
....
4.1. 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 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week) ..... "
15. As no rejoinder has been filed or anything contrary to what is in the reply statement has been filed, hence we consider this scheme of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) of Government of India, 1993 which came into force with effect from 1.9.1993 could have been applicable to the applicant if he fulfilled certain conditions laid down therein.
16. Clearly, for applicability of this provision and for the grant of temporary status to the applicant which is the first step towards grant of regularisation to the applicant, he must fulfil the criteria as laid down in paragraph 4(i) of the said scheme which says that 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 SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 10 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week).
17. However the applicant has not shed any light as to in which type of office he was working; whether it was five days a week or it was six days a week. Even if we go by the standard working of five days a week, by his own assertion, which the respondents have disagreed with, in the brief facts of the case that the applicant was engaged as part-time Casual Labour (PTCL) at Challakere Post Office under the Recruiting Unit of Respondent No.4 with effect from 2.6.1993 after he was sponsored through Employment Exchange. And he is continuously working since then till now, from 2.6.1993 to the effective date of 1.9.1993, it does not make 206 days as was required in the above mentioned rule. Hence, this provision will not be applicable and if the applicant was not eligible for being granted temporary status, he was ineligible for any further relief to be regularised. So the applicant's first assertion in paragraph 5(a) of this O.A. that he should be regularised under the scheme of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) of Government of India, 1993 is not substantiated and he is not eligible to be regularised under the said scheme as asserted by the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 11 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE respondents. As no rejoinder is forthcoming controverting this, we have to believe and base our findings on the facts and records placed before us by the respondents.
18. In this ground 5(a), the very submission that either to give him regularization and appointment as MTS under the regularization scheme 1993 or under 25%/100% casual labour quota, shows that the applicant himself is not very clear about his status and eligibility at the same time he wants the benefit of anything under the sun without giving specific facts and substantiating the same.
19. Let us examine his claim under the Department of Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2018.
This rule has been amended and this shall come into effect from 30.8.2023 vide notification G.S.R.639(E) as Department of Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2023 as Annexure A-21 which inter-alia other things in paragraph 2(b)(iii)(A) mention the following:
"2........
(A) for item numbers (i), (ii) and (iii) and the entries relating thereto, the following items shall be substituted, namely SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 12 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(a) 100 per cent by appointment of casual labourers of the recruiting Division or Unit, conferred with temporary status, on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, failing which;
(b) by appointment of casual labourers of the recruiting Division or Unit, engaged on or before 1 September, 1993, working for eight hours in a day, on the basis of seniority-cum-
fitness, failing which,
(c) by appointment of part-time casual labourers of the recruiting Division or Unit, engaged on or before 1 September, 1993, on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, failing which:
(d) by appointment of casual labourers of all the other Divisions or Units of the Circle, conferred with temporary status, on the basis of seniority-
cum-fitness, failing which;
(e) by appointment of casual labourers of all th the other Divisions or Units of the Circle, engaged on or before 1" September, 1993, working for eight hours in a day, on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, failing which; "
20. The applicant asserts that as he is a part-time casual labourer of the recruiting division and was engaged before the 1 st of September 1993, he should be given the benefit of appointment on the basis of seniority cum fitness as there is no other casual labourer of the recruiting division or unit conferred with temporary status or casual labourers of the recruiting division working for 8 hours in a day SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 13 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE available. So he is the only person who is eligible and should be given the benefit.
21. His main assertion is that the document Annexure A-1 clearly shows that he was appointed on 2.6.1993 and he has got a court order in his favour based on the same. The document Annexure A-1, his appointment order as Part-Time Casual Labourer (Gardner), dated 20.6.1995 reads the following:
"No_Gardener Dis/349 dated at_Challaker_the 20.6.1995 In accordance with SP Chitradurga letter dated 15.6.1995, one Shri.S. Mallikarjuna S/o Shiyanna and who's name sponsored by Employment Exchange, Chitradurga and working as, part-time Gardner (Temporary) since 2-6-1993, is hereby appointed as part-time Casual Labour (Gardner) of Challekere, LSG SO on regular basis for four hours daily with effect from 20.6.1995 forenoon.
He will work as Gardner from Morning 0700, Hrs to 0990 hours and evening from 1500 Hrs to 1700 Hrs daily."
22. A simple reading of the above shows that he was appointed as part-time casual labourer Gardner only on 20.6.1995 and that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The said order refers that he had been working as a Part-time Gardner (Temporary) SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 14 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE since 2.6.1993. Now it is not clear what was his status from 2.6.1993 to 20.6.1995 as he became a part-time casual labourer Gardner on 20.6.1995 only and before that, he was a part-time Gardner (Temporary) since 2.6.1993.
23. Although this issue came up for decision before the Tribunal earlier and vide its order dated 20.9.2022, the Tribunal recorded the finding that on the perusal of the records indicates that the applicant has been continuously working from 1993 onwards and he had also been appointed as a casual worker (Gardner) since 20.6.1995. But clearly at that point of time as the applicability of the Department of Post (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2018 (or 2023) was not a matter of contest, hence the nature of the appointment of the applicant between 2.6.1993 to 20.6.1995 was not examined at all.
24. The Court has also recorded in paragraph 13 that the applicant has stated that he was appointed on regular basis as a casual labourer from 20.6.1995 and that in paragraph 11, it mentions that the applicant has stated that he was initially engaged as a temporary part time casual labourer (Gardner) at Challakere P.O on 2.6.1993. Subsequently after his name was sponsored by the Employment SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 15 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Exchange, he was appointed as a part time casual labourer (Gardner) at Challakere LSG SO on a regular basis for four hours daily with effect from 20.6.1995.
25. The facts mentioned therein do not match with the brief facts of the case mentioned in this O.A as it mentioned herein that the applicant was engaged as part-time casual labour (PTCL) at Challakere Post Office under the Recruiting Unit of Respondent no.4 with effect from 2.6.1993 after sponsored through Employment Exchange and he is continuously working till now as such.
26. Certainly the fact that he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange on 2.6.1993 was neither contended nor had been factually found in the earlier O.A 1286/2015 in its order dated 20.9.2022 wherein paragraph 11, the assertion of the applicant, was very different than what he has now stated in the brief of facts in this O.A. In the earlier O.A, the applicant stated that he was initially engaged as a temporary part-time casual labourer (Gardner) and subsequently after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he was appointed as a part-time casual labourer (Gardner) at Challakere LSG SO on regular basis for four hours daily with effect from 20.6.1995. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 16 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
27. Meaning thereby that his name was sponsored by Employment Exchange only in the year 1995 and he was then appointed on a regular basis as Part Time Casual Labourer (PTCL). Although in some form, as already been decided in the earlier O.A., he had been working since 1993, which fact we will not get into as the fact has already been decided in the earlier O.A. and same has not been challenged by the respondents at higher forums. But certainly in the earlier O.A, the nature of his appointment between the date from 2.6.1993 to the date of Annexure A-1 wherein on 20.6.1995 he was appointed as temporary PTCL Gardner at Challakere LSG SO on regular basis for four hours daily with effect from 20.6.1995.
28. Hence, the name of the applicant for being considered as PTCL as defined in the said rule as referred as the Department of Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2023 which came into effect on 30.8.2023 whether in its paragraph 2(b)(iii)(A)(i)(c), by appointment of part-time casual labourers of the recruiting Division or Unit, engaged on or before 1st September 1993, based on seniority-cum-fitness, needs to be further examined. Although the Department is contending that they SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 17 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE are of the opinion that the applicant became regular PTCL only on 20.6.1995. But they cannot re-contest the facts which were already examined and decided in the earlier O.A 1286/2015 vide its order dated 20.9.2022. So within the terms of the said earlier order, the respondents need to re-examine to what extent the applicant was a part-time casual labourer within the said definition as in the present rule of 2023 or the rules of 2018 dated 16.8.2018 which are called the Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2018 wherein also similar provisions were there for the method of recruitment. In item (c) it mentioned that:
"(C) By appointment of par-time Casual Labourers engaged on or before the 1st September 1993, of the recruiting Division or Unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority, failing which, the unfilled vacancies shall be added to the number of vacancies to be filled as per (ii) above. "
29. Clearly, in the light of the order of this Tribunal dated 20.9.2022, the respondents need to re-examine the status of the applicant between 2.6.1993 and 20.6.1995 and give a clear finding of his status and if he is eligible, should consider the applicant's case under the present amended rules of 30.8.2023 which are in force. Accordingly the applicant may be given the benefit of the same as per SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 18 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE para 2 of the said rule. As it is a case of part-time casual worker, who had been working for the department for a long time, and as such he has no other avenue of alternate appointment open before him, hence his case has to be dealt with all empathy and his case has to be decided giving him all benefits of doubt.
30. In paragraph 5(b), the applicant says that he was engaged as part-time casual Labour (PTCL) at Challakere Post office under the Recruiting Unit of Respondent No.4 with effect from 02-06-1993 after being sponsored through Employment exchange and he is continuously working till now as such, this was confirmed by his engagement letter dated:20-06-1995 issued by Sub Postmaster, Callakere Post office the Applicant is engaged as PTCL with effect from 02-06-1993 (Vide Annexure-Al). The engagement of Applicant as PTCL with effect from 02-06-1993 was also confirmed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated: 10-03-2016 passed in O.A.No.170/1286/2015 in which cost Rs.5000/-was also ordered to Respondents for unnecessary dispute over this issue (vide Annexure- A9). The date of engagement of the applicant with effect from 02-06-
1993 was also confirmed in W.P. no.60075/2016 passed by the Hon'ble court, Bengaluru in its order dated: 23-01-17 (vide Annexure- SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 19 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE A10). On filing Contempt petitionNo.17/121/2017 for non- implementing this Hon'ble CAT/High Court orders, the Respondents have filed a declaration/affidavit that the orders of Hon'ble CAT/High Court have been fully complied with and accordingly Contempt petition was disposed vide its order dated; 10-01-2018 (Vide Annexure-A11). Thus, the matter on his engagement as PTCL since 02-06-1993 was reached finality and the Applicant is working continuously as PTCL since 02-06-1993 becoming eligible for regularization as MTS in all respects. The Hon'ble CAT has again further confirmed engagement of Applicant as PTCL with effect from 02-06-1993 in its orders dated: 20-09-2022 passed in O.A.1286/2015 besides condoning delay (vide Annexure-A17). Moreover, in similar and identical to the case of Shri G.Mallesh, Shri Y.G.Manjunatha and Shri M.Hanumantha are already regularized and appointed as MTS. In this connection, kindly see Annexure- A2, annexure-A6, Annexure- A7 and Anneure-A13 for Hon'ble Court orders/DPC minutes where similar and identical cases are decided in favour of PTCLS.
31. To this, the respondents in paragraph 26 of the reply statement submit that the applicant was ordered to look after the duties of Sri. Siddesha S, during his leave from 01.07.1996, vide Annexure-R2. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 20 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Hence, it is clear that the applicant was not engaged with effect from 02.06.1993, as mentioned in SPM Challakere SO letter dated 20.06.1995, Annexure-Al of OA. Also, as per Respondent No. 4, letter dated 10/11.08.1999, produced as Annexure-R3, the post of Part Time Contingent Gardener, Challakere SO was under the control of SDI(P) Challakere till the issue of Annexure-R3 and thereafter controlled by SPM, Challakere SO. Thus prior to coming under the control of SPM, Challakere SO issued an engagement order that was not agreeable.
32. These objections are very much the same, which was there before the Tribunal earlier in O.A No.1286/15 where orders were passed on 20.9.2022 in favour of the applicant.
33. Further, the respondents say that as per SSLC marks card of the applicant his date of birth is 09.05.1977. Copy of marks card is produced as Annexure-R10 and in Annexure-Al mentioned as the applicant name was sponsored by employment exchange Chitradurga and working as part time Gardner (Temporary) since 02.06.1993 is hereby appointed as part-time Casual Labour (Gardner). Hence, it is strongly suspected that Annexure-Al is not a valid document, which SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 21 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE he relied upon, since the applicant was just 15 years 8 months and 27 days as on 02.09.1993.
34. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly contended that the Employment Exchange cannot sponsor the name of a person who is having the age of 15 years 8 months and 27 days.
35. The respondents further contended that neither the Hon'ble CAT nor the Hon'ble High Court has made judgement orders vide Annexure-A9 and Annexure-A10 stating that the applicant is a PTCL. In the case of Sri. Y. G. Manjunatha and Sri. G. Mallesha, they were engaged as PTCL before 01.09.1993, whereas the Applicant is engaged as an Outsider in the leave vacancy of Sri. S. Siddesha from 01.07.1996. The referred case of Sri. M. Hanumanth is not applicable here.
36. Before us the full details of cases of Shri.Y.G.Manjunatha, Shri.G.Mallesha and Shri.M.Hanumanth are not available. Hence, those are not comparable cases and in the case of PTCL or any Casual Labour, the facts of individual cases are very important. Hence, no SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 22 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE other case is relevant as a guiding light to decide this issue. But from the records of both parties on the record, we find again some contradictions in the present contentions of the applicant which are different than what he had contended in the order dated 20.9.2022 in O.A 1286/2015 at para 11. The facts and the assertion of the applicant that his name was sponsored in 1993 by the Employment Exchange and he was appointed based on the reference from the Employment Exchange on 2.6.1993 as PTCL are different than what is mentioned in para 11 of the earlier C.A.T order dated 20.9.2022, wherein it is mentioned as following:-
"11. The applicant has stated that he was initially engaged as a temporary part time casual labourer (Gardner) at Challakere PO on 2.6.1993. Subsequently after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he was appointed as a part time casual labourer (Gardner) at Challakere LSG SO on regular basis for four hours daily with effect from 20.6.1995. This order was issued by Sub-Post Master, Challakere (Annexure A-1)"
37. In his para 5(b) also the applicant wants to assert that he was appointed with effect from 2.6.1993 after being sponsored through Employment Exchange which fact is clearly contrary to his own facts which were before the Tribunal earlier in O.A 1286/2015. This shows SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 23 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE that the applicant has not come before us with clean hands and tries to manipulate and twist the facts.
38. We have seen his SSLC mark cards which is filed as Annexure R-10 where his date of birth is clearly shown as 9.5.1977 which is also not controverted as no rejoinder has been filed which also clearly substantiate that on the day of 1.9.1993 he would have been just 15 years 8 months and 27 days old.
So these facts may be re-appreciated by the respondents and pass a speaking order on the same. We observe that by changing his facts of date of sponsorship from Employment Exchange from 1995 to 1993 in his previous and present pleadings the applicant does not make out his case any stronger.
39. In paragraph 5(c), the applicant submits that the Department of Posts (MTS) Recruitment Rules 2018 were published in the official gazette by making provision for appointment of casual labourers as MTS among 25% vacancies (vide Annexure-A12) who are engaged/working on or before 01-09-1993. These RRs of MTS is further amended on 30-8-2023 (Vide Annexure-A21) by making SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 24 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE provision for regularization of casual labourers among 100% vacancies.
The rules are not disputed nor it substantiated the factual position of the case of the applicant.
40. In paraghraph 5(d), the applicants submits that it is again submitted that there is no other temporary status/full time/part time casual labours available in the Recruiting Division (Respondent No.4) working continuously since 01-09-1993 except the Applicant who is alone eligible in all respects and working as eligible part Time Casual Labour with effect from 02-06-1993 in the said recruiting Division Continuously. In the meantime, one MTS vacancy was earmarked under 25% casual labour quota in Recruiting Union of Respondent No4. For the year2018 (Vide Annexure-A20). The applicant has submitted representation dated: 21-12-2019 (vide Annexure-A14) to regularize and appoint him as MTS for one MTS vacancy earmarked for casual labour quota for the year 2018 quoting the similar and identical case of one Shri M.Hanumanth, PTCL PSD Arasikere who was appointed as MTS on03-09-2019(Vide Annexure-A13), but in the DPC held on 06-07-2020, the Respondent No.4 (Recruiting unit) has erroneously and intentionally did not recommend/appoint the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 25 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE applicant with malafide intention and transferred the said earmarked casual labour quota to outside (GDS)quota. It is submitted that again two more MTS vacancies were earmarked under 25% casual labour quota in Recruiting unit of Respondent No.4 for the year 2021 (vide Annexure-A20). The applicant has again submitted representation dated: 20-06-2021 (vide Annexure-A15) to appoint him as MTS for one MTS vacancy earmarked for casual labour quota for the year 2021 quoting the similar and identical case of one Shri M.Hanumanth, PTCL PSD Arasikere who was appointed as MTS on 03-09-2019 (Vide annexure-A13), but in the DPC held on 22-07-2021 the respondent No.4 (Recruiting Unit) has erroneously and intentionally again did not recommend/appoint the Applicant with malafide intention and transferred the said earmarked casual labour quota to outsider (GDS) quota. It again submitted that again one more MTS vacancy was earmarked under 25% casual labour quota in Recruiting Unit of respondent No.4 for the year 2022 ( vide Annexure-A20). The applicant has again submitted representation dated: 20-06-2022 (vide Annexure-A16) to appoint him as MTS for one MTS vacancy earmarked for casual labour quota for the year 2022 quoting the similar and identical case of one Shri M.Hanumanth, PTCL PSD Arasikere who was appointed as MTS on 03-09-2019 (Vide SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 26 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Annexure-A13, but in the DPC held on09-06-202, the respondent No.4 (Recruiting Unit has erroneously and intentionally again did not recommend/appoint the Applicant with malafide intention and transferred the said earmarked casual labour quota to outsider ( GDS) quota. The Applicant has again submitted his application on04-06- 2023 (vide Annexure-A18) to recommend/appoint him as MTS vacancy being arisen during June2023, but the same was also not given but transferred to GDS Examination quota arbitrarily. Thus, the respondents continued to harass the Applicant since 1993/2018 on frivolous grounds with malafide intention.
41. In this paragraph, the applicant takes the ground of malafide but he has not made any one as party in the present case and not substantiated the malafide. Hence, the ground of malafide does not sustain. Furthermore, the applicant has not challenged any of the orders and actions of the respondents as mentioned in the above paragraph, and by act of omission on the part of applicant those orders become final and binding, further weakening the case of the applicant. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 27 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
42. Further none of the decisions of the respondents mentioned in this paragraph 5(d) has been challenged in the O.A. Hence, this paragraph in isolation may not buttress the case of the applicant.
43. In paragraph 5(e), the applicant says that he has submitted his representations on 10-09-2023 (vide Annexure-A22) and 20-10-2023 (vide Annexure-A23) but no action was taken. In response to his representation dated: 02-01-2024 (Vide Annexure-A25), finally the respondent No.4 has sent impugned reply on02-02-2024 (vide Annexure-A26) that Applicant is not eligible for regularization and appointment as MTS. This reply is cryptic, non-speaking order, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the statutory engagement scheme/RRs of MTS.
44. In reply to paragraph 5(e), the respondents have said in paragraph 28 and 29 of their reply statement that the referred case of Sri. M. Hanumanth is not applicable in instant case.
45. In the instant case, as before us, full details of Shri.M.Hanumanth is not there and each case of Casual Labourer regularisation or Direct Recruitment are based on facts of the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 28 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE individual cases. Hence, any case like that of Shri.M.Hanumanth may not help the applicant who have to substantiate his case based on his own facts and full merit.
46. The respondents further says that the DPC members after going through all merits, decided not to consider the applicant for the post of MTS during the DPC meetings held on 05.10.2020 and 22.07.2021 vide Annexure R-12 & R-13 respectively. Even the Respondents 3 and 4 considered all the representations made by the Applicant, acted as per the Rules/Instructions and communicated to the Applicant. All the representations made by the applicant were examined by the Respondents to whom it was addressed and acted as per the Rules/Instructions issued by this Department. There might have been an administrative delay in communicating the reply.
47. We have examined Annexure A-26 which reads the following:
" Sub: Request for appointment as MTS under Casual Labour quota reg.
Ref: Representation/request letters dated 04.06.2023 and 10.09.2023 This is in continuation to this office letter dated 02.03.2023, this is to inform that since you are not fulfilling the prescribed conditions required for SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 29 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE selection to the post of MTS under casual labour quota, your representation for selection as MTS is disposed off.
The outcome/recommendation of the committee constituted and meeting held at the office of the SSPOs, Kolar Division, Kolar on 22.07.2021 is upheld. Found no merits in placing the same case before the committee meant for selection to the post of MTS under casual labour quota. Further approach regarding the same claim will not be considered and the same will be disposed off at entry stage itself. "
48. A simple reading of the same shows that it does not give any specific reason for the decision therein to that extent. It may not be convincing as cases of Casual Labourer has to be dealt with more empathy and in such endorsements clear reason should be given with facts of the individual case as to why the specific cases of Casual Labourer was not considered. The order should be speaking and self- contained.
49. In paragraph 5(f), the applicant submits that he is poor physically handicapped person and at present he is 46 years old and no possibility of getting any other job. Therefore denial of his regularization and appointment as MTS since 1993/2018 under casual labour quota even though he is eligible and entitled for it in all SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 30 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE respects is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. In same similar and identical cases of Sri G.Mallesha, the then PTCL Koramanagala like Applicant was regularized and appointed as MTS based on this Hon'ble CAT orders dated: 31-07-2008 in O.A.No.475/2007 (Annexure-A2), Shri Y.G. Manjunath the then PTCL Banashankari I stage PO, Bengaluru like Applicant was also regularized and appointed so based on this Hon'ble CAT order dated:
09-01-2013 in Ο.Α.Νο. 170/854/2012 (Vide Annexure-A6) read with Hon'ble High Court, Bengaluru orders dated: 19-04-2014 in W.P.No.18219/2014 (vide Annexure-A7. Further, Shri M.Hanumantha, the then PTCL PSD Arasikere like Applicant was also regularized and appointed as MTS on 03-09-2019 based on DPC recommendation( vide Annexure-A13). But denying the same benefit to the Application is highly irregular and unsustainable in the eye of the law.
50. We have seen the said references which are made regarding Shri G.Mallesh, Shri Y.G.Manjunatha and Shri M.Hanumanth, but we do not have full details and facts of those cases before us. We cannot compare those cases with that of the applicant as each case of Casual Labourers is different. More so, as a PTCL, each case facts are SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 31 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE specific and the fact of the individual case has to be substantiated by their own merit and no similarity and comparison can be drawn. Hence these contentions are not convincing.
51. In paragraph 5(g), the applicant says that he again submits that his case is similar and identical to Shri G.Mallesh, Shri Y.G.Manjunatha and Shri M.Hanumanth who were already regularized and appointed as MTS, the applicant is also eligible to be appointed and extended the same benefits notionally since 1993/2018 with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and equity. The denial of the same to the Applicant since 1993/2018 is against the statutory regularization scheme 1993/RRS of MTS 2018 and is also nothing but continuous harassment to the Applicant for more than 30 years on frivolous litigation to get the fruits of the scheme.
52. Again these are mere bland comparison with those whose complete facts are not before us. Hence the contention taken in this paragraph is not convincing.
53. In paragraph 5(h), the applicant submits that in recent judgment dated: 16-02-24 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SPO 3398/2024 SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 32 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE vide Annexure-A27), it was decided in favour of PTCL( who is engaged since 01-05-1993) with cost of RS.10 lakhs to Government for frivolous litigation for 22 years. The case of the applicant is similar and identical to this case and is prayed for similar benefits to the Applicant in the interest of justice and equity with exemplary cost to the respondents.
54. The facts of the above mentioned decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court are not fully before us. Hence, no comparison can be drawn. Although we would like to record that in the case of any Casual Labourer or PTCL, the respondent authorities have to deal with the case with empathy and due caution and give them sufficient opportunities to the applicant to put forth their say and through a speaking order only give proper decision in each case, based on their own merit. We are of the considered opinion that in such cases, as the PTCL has worked for a long time, which is not disputed, the benefit of any doubt shall go to the hapless applicant.
55. In the light of the above discussion, we would like to record the following observations:
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 33 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE The case of the applicant is particularly based on the document in Annexure A-1 dated 20.6.1995 which makes it clear that he was appointed as PTCL Gardner on a regular basis for 4 hours daily with effect from 20.6.1995 only. It is also mentioned therein that in some form or the other, he was working since 2.6.1993, but certainly, the said document itself makes the distinction of his nature of employment from 2.6.1993 to 20.6.1995 and after 20.6.1995 as in the earlier round of litigation at Annexure A-17 in O.A No.1286/2015 wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 20.9.2022 had made certain observations that the applicant has been continuously working from 1993 onwards and that he had been also appointed as a Casual Worker Gardner since 20.6.1995. So in the light of those, certain reliefs were given.
56. It is surprising that when these proceedings were happening in 2022, the rule of Casual Labourer (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2018 was in force which is referred to by the applicant in this O.A; as why he did not make that also as a ground and reason for relief in the said O.A. So that his claim could have been examined properly. Further, in the said judgement at paragraph 11, the assertion of the applicant is recorded that the applicant had SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 34 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE stated that he was initially engaged as a Temporary PTCL (Gardner) and subsequently after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he was appointed as a PTCL (Gardner) on regular basis for four hours daily with effect from 20.6.1995. But now before us in the brief facts of the case at page 3 of the O.A, in the first sentence, the applicant wants to assert something contrary that 'the applicant was engaged as Part Time Casual Labour (PTCL) at Challakere Post Office under the Recruiting Unit of Respondent No.4 with effect from 2.6.1993 after sponsored through Employment Exchange and he is continuously working till now as such.
57. The same plea has been taken in paragraph 5(b) where he mentions that the applicant was engaged as PTCL under the Recruiting Unit of respondent no.4 with effect from 2.6.1993 after sponsored through employment exchange and he is continuously working till now as such. This was confirmed by his engagement order dated 20.6.1995. These facts contradict each other as it is contrary to what was recorded in paragraph 11 of the said O.A 1286/2015 which shows that the applicant is somehow not coming before us with clean hands and he is manipulating the facts. So his nature of employment between 2.6.1993 to 20.6.1995 is certainly not SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 35 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE the same as what it is recorded after 20.6.1995. The respondents are directed to sympathetically take an official view of the same with empathy and leniency and re-examine his case as their impugned endorsement dated 2.2.2024 at Annexure A-26 by which they rejected the claim of the Applicant was without giving any specific reason for rejection of his earlier application. The said order is non-speaking and is without application of mind. Hence, the same is required to be set aside.
58. Considering the above discussions, in the light of the facts and rules as before us, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the respondents re-consider the case of the applicant and accordingly we pass the following order:
We partly allow the Original Application and quash the impugned order of the superintendent of Post Offices, Chitradurga Dn, Chitradurga-577 501 letter No.CTA/B2/CL/Dlgs dated 2.2.2024 Annexure A26 issued by respondent No.4 and direct the respondents to re- consider the case of the applicant afresh in the light of the present rules of Department of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.02.25 16:34:23+05'30' 36 O.A.Nos.170/269/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2023, rule 2 particularly the clause (b)(iii)9A)(c) by appointment of part-time casual labourers of the recruiting Division or Unit, engaged on or before 1st September, 1993, based on seniority-cum-fitness with empathy giving all benefit of doubt to the applicant.
The competent authority among the respondents is directed to decide the case of the applicant in a time-bound manner expeditiously and in no case later than 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications, if any are pending, are also disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.02.25
16:34:23+05'30'