Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rukum Singh vs I V R I on 18 February, 2025
(Reserved on 26.11.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.454/2015
This the 18th Day of February, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
1. Rukum Singh aged about 42years S/o Late Jamuna Prasad R/o Village
Mohanpur @ Ramnagar Bareilly Post R.K. University, District Bareilly.
2. Pratap Singh aged about 38 years S/o Late Pooran Lal R/o Village
Mohanpur @ Ramnagar Bareilly Post R.K. University, District Bareilly.
3. Indrajeet aged about 39 years S/o Late Jamuna Prasad R/o Village
Mohanpur @ Ramnagar Bareilly Post R.K.. University, District Bareilly.
4. Pratap Singh aged about 40 years S/o Shri Ram Prasad R/o Village
Mohanpur @ Ramnagar University, District Bareilly. Bareilly Post R.K.
...........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Dhrubvanshi
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of
India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture, Research (ICAR) Krishi
Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Izzat Nagar
Bareilly (U.P.).
4. Ram Das, Muzdoor (IVRI), Izzat Nagar, Bareilly.
5. Shri Suresh (FrershAppointment) Lab, Attendant (Goup 'D') Post
I.V.R.I. Izzat Nagar, Bareilly.
.............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Narendra Pratap Singh
ORDER
Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and pursued the pleadings available on record.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.2
2. Instant Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-
"i,. Issue suitable order and direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated Nil (Issued in the month of February) vide which to filling up the post of Group 'D' have been initiated without considering the case of the applicants on the strength of previous working experience.
ii. Issue suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to implement the order/direction issued by the ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi or 23.11.94 for grant of Temporary Status shown as Annexure A-14 to this O.A. in case of the applicant with all consequential benefits.
iii. Issue suitable order or direction by way of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to pass order in the case of applicants as passed in the case of Jai Pal Kashyap C.L. as per the Hon'ble CAT Allahabad & High Court Judgment and also pass order considering the CAT Allahabad and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ram Das in similarly situated condition. "
3. Brief facts of the case, according to the applicants, are as follows:-
3.1 The applicants were engaged as casual laborers by the Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Izzat Nagar, Bareilly between the years 1986 to 1991. They were assigned duties such as cleaning, maintenance, support work etc. and continuously performed these tasks for more than 240 days each year until 1995.
3.2. In 1995, the respondent department shifted their mode of engagement to contractual labour through a registered contractor.
Despite this, the applicants continued to perform the same nature of duties under the direct supervision and control of the respondent's department.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.3 3.3 The Government of India issued various Office Memoranda (OMs) and circulars between 1983 and 1995 regarding the regularization of casual laborers. These guidelines emphasized granting temporary status and regularization to casual workers, who had completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year.
3.4. In 1992, an agreement was reached between the casual laborers' representatives and the Director of IVRI promising that casual laborers would be considered for regular appointments to permanent Group 'D' posts as and when vacancies arose.
3.5. In 1994, the applicants filed Original Application (OA) No. 119 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad. In which an interim order was granted directing the respondents not to remove the applicants from their positions. However, later on the OA was dismissed on 16.12.1994 on the grounds that no sanctioned posts were available for regularization at that time.
3.6. Despite the dismissal of the OA, the respondent department continued to recruit Group 'D' staff and engaged contract laborers to perform duties identical to those assigned to the applicants.
3.7. The applicants made repeated representations to the respondents citing their continuous service and the existing policies for regularization of casual laborers. They also referred to favorable judgments obtained by similarly placed individuals including one Jaipal Kashyap, whose services were regularized following court directions.
3.8 The respondents, however, take no action on the applicants' representations. They ignored circulars issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Indian Council of SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.4 Agricultural Research (ICAR), which mandated the regularization and granting of temporary status to eligible casual laborers.
3.9 The applicants relied on several judicial pronouncements, including judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts which held that workers engaged in similar circumstances were entitled to regularization and permanent status if their work was under the direct control and supervision of the employer.
3.10 Despite the guidelines and precedents, the respondents denied to give the temporary status and regularization to the applicants, leading to their filing of the present application. The applicants contend that the denial of their claims constitutes a violation of their constitutional rights and principles of natural justice.
3.11 Through the present OA, the applicants seek relief in the form of regularization of their services granting of temporary status and other benefits arising from their continuous and long-term engagement with the respondent department.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a counter affidavit on 29.05.2015 refuting the averments made in the Original Application and stated that:-
4.1 The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking temporary status and regularization as a casual laborer under the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) scheme dated 10.09.1993, subsequently adopted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) on 23.11.1994. The scheme stipulated that casual laborers employed on the date of its introduction must have completed at least 240 days of work in a year to qualify.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.5 4.2 The respondents have raised preliminary objections emphasizing that the claim is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the grievance pertains to events from 1994. Despite submitting representations in 2013, 2014 and 2015, the applicant failed to approach the Tribunal within the prescribed time frame. The law is well settled through judgments such as Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar (2010 (2) SCC 59) and C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining (2008 (10) SCC 115), which clarify that representations made after significant delay do not revive stale claims.
4.3 On merits, the respondents further stated that the applicants' service record demonstrates fragmented and sporadic periods of engagement failing to meet the scheme's condition of 240 days of work in a year. Furthermore, the applicants were not employed as casual laborer on the scheme's introduction date, as confirmed by their records. Previous related claims, including OA No.119/1994 and subsequent appeals, were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejecting an SLP No.16462/1995 on 31.07.1995. The doctrine of res judicata applies and the applicant cannot seek parity with dismissed cases. The scheme being a one-time measure, mandates strict adherence to its eligibility criteria, as held in Raj Kamal vs. Union of India (1990) decided on 16.02.1990 by the CAT Principal Bench.
4.4 The delay of nearly two decades in approaching the Tribunal coupled with the applicant's inability to meet the scheme's conditions renders the claim unsustainable. Additionally, the absence of a valid explanation for the delay further weakens the case. Repeated representations made years later, as clarified in multiple precedents, do not constitute a fresh cause of action. Considering the substantial lapse of time, the lack of merit and the settled nature of the issue the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.6
5. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant's counsel on 14.03.2016 denying the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterating the facts mentioned in the Original application.
6. The applicants' counsel submitted that the applicants had worked continuously from 1986 to 1995 under the direct control of the respondents and had completed the required 240 days of service in a calendar year. As per government policies and the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T), they were eligible for regularization and the grant of temporary status. However, the respondents failed to comply with these guidelines, which was arbitrary and against the principles of fairness.
7. It is also contended by the applicants' counsel that the respondents have engaged other individuals for similar posts while ignoring the applicants, leading to discriminatory treatment and a violation of their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The counsel cited judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such as State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, to support the claim for regularization of long-serving casual laborers performing work of a permanent nature. The applicants were denied the benefit despite assurances of regularization made by the respondents in 1992, which gave rise to their legitimate expectation of being regularized.
8. The counsel further highlighted that the applicants' work was of a permanent and essential nature and that their repeated representations were ignored without any valid reason or speaking order. This violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the applicants prayed for their regularization with effect from their initial engagement, the grant of temporary status and payment of all consequential benefits including arrears and allowances.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.7
9. Per contra, the respondents' counsel submitted that the applicant's claim is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They submitted that the events giving rise to the grievance occurred in 1994 but the applicant filed this Original Application only in 2023 almost three decades later. The law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar (supra) and C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining (supra), establishes that delayed representations do not revive stale claims. Hence, the application is time-barred and unsustainable.
10. The counsel further submitted that the applicant does not fulfill the eligibility criteria under the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Scheme of 1993. The scheme required casual laborers to have completed at least 240 days of work in a year and to have been employed on the date of its introduction. The applicant's service records show intermittent and fragmented periods of engagement, falling short of the mandatory conditions. The respondents also pointed out that similar claims made by the applicant through OA No.119/1994 and subsequent appeals were dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld these dismissals by rejecting the applicant's SLP on 31.07.1995 making the current claim barred by the principle of res judicata.
11. The respondents emphasized that the scheme was a one-time measure with strict conditions that cannot be relaxed. Judicial precedents such as Raj Kamal vs. Union of India (supra), have underscored the importance of adhering to such eligibility criteria. The counsel also argued that entertaining this belated claim would open the floodgates for similarly stale demands undermining administrative efficiency and finality.
12. The counsel lastly submitted that the applicant has not provided a valid reason for the delay of nearly three decades in filing this case. Repeated representations made in 2013, 2014, and 2015 cannot be SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.8 treated as a fresh cause of action as clarified in several judgments. In view of the excessive delay, lack of merit and settled nature of the issue the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the Original Application.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record, the Tribunal finds that the primary issue raised by the applicants pertains to the grant of temporary status and subsequent regularization of their services under the DoP&T Scheme dated 10.09.1993, which was adopted by ICAR on 23.11.1994.
14. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay in filing the present Original Application. The grievance pertains to events that occurred in 1994 and the applicant approached the Tribunal only in 2023, nearly three decades later. As per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 applications must be filed within the prescribed limitation period unless a valid justification for delay is provided. The applicant's reliance on representations made in 2013, 2014, and 2015 does not revive their stale claim. Judicial precedents, including Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar (supra) and C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining (supra), have consistently clarified that delayed representations cannot be treated as a fresh cause of action. In the absence of any cogent explanation for the inordinate delay, the Tribunal finds that the claim is time-barred.
15. On the merits of the case, the DoP&T Scheme of 1993 prescribes specific eligibility criteria including completion of at least 240 days of service in a year and engagement as a casual laborer on the scheme's introduction date. The applicant's service record as submitted by the respondents demonstrates intermittent and fragmented periods of engagement which fail to meet the scheme's mandatory conditions. Furthermore, the applicant was not employed as a casual laborer on the date the scheme was introduced disqualifying them from its benefits. The Tribunal also finds that previous claims by the applicant including OA No.119/1994 were dismissed on similar grounds and the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.9 Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld these dismissals vide order dated 31.07.2015 passed in SLP No.16462/1995. The principle of res judicata precludes the applicant from raising the same claim again in a different proceeding.
16. The applicant has sought relief based on favorable judgments in other cases such as those of Jaipal Kashyap and Ram Das. However, the Tribunal finds that judicial precedents must be applied in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. In this instance, the applicant's service record and inordinate delay distinguish their case from the cited precedents.
17. In the case of Union of India v/s Mohan Pal, AIR 2002 SC 2001, the Apex Court held that the Scheme known as "Casual Laborers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993" by which the temporary status can be granted when concurrently the twin conditions are met: (a) the casual laborer should have been on the rolls as of 10-09-1993, and (b) they should have completed 240/206 days in a year. This scheme has been held as a one-time measure, not to be extended further. The Hon'ble Apex Court stated as follows:-
"The first question is to be decided on the basis of the interpretation of clause 4 of the aforesaid Scheme. As already noticed, the Scheme came into effect from 1-9-1993. Clause 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows:-
"temporary status.--(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 one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days' week)."
18. Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of "temporary" status is to be given to the casual laborers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. To acquire "temporary" status, the casual laborer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.10 should have also rendered continuous service of at least one year, meaning engagement for at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in the case of offices observing a five-day week. Clause 4 of the Scheme does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving "temporary" status to all casual workers as and when they complete one year of continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual laborers are to be given "temporary" status and later absorbed in Group 'D' posts.
19. The above decision was followed in the case of Director General, Doordarshan v/s Manas Dey (2005) 13 SCC 437 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
".... the department had circulated by OM No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10-9-1993 a scheme for grant of temporary status and regularisation of casual workers. The Scheme is called the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993. The said Scheme came into force with effect from 1-9-1993. The Scheme envisaged grant of temporary status to casual labourers who had worked at least 240 days in a year (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days a week).
9. Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of temporary status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. The Tribunal has taken the view that this is an ongoing scheme and as and when casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get temporary status. We do not think that clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing scheme. In order to acquire temporary status, the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered a continuous service of at least one year which means that he should have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices observing five-day a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving temporary status to all the casual workers, as and when they complete one year's continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given temporary status and later they are to be absorbed in Group D posts."
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.11
20. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc employee appointed/ recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment. The Court further held that the court should not issue direction for regularization of service of such employees.
21. Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated the aforesaid law in the case of Satya Prakash and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2010 (2) UPLBEC 1181, wherein following observations were made by the Court:-
"6. We are of the view that the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. Appellants were only engaged on daily wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. In Umadevi's case (supra) this Court held that the Courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees. This Court held that such directions issued could not be said to be in consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment. This Court held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, 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. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the directions sought for by the appellants cannot be granted.
7. paragraph 53 of Umadevi's Judgment, deals with irregular appointments (not illegal appointments). Constitution Bench specifically referred to the judgment in S.V. Narayanappa v. State of Mysore, (1967)1 SCR 128, R.N. Nanjudappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409, in paragraph 15 of Umadevi's judgment as well.
8. Let us refer to paragraph 15 and 16 of Umadevi's judgment in this context. Necessity of keeping in mind the distinction between regularization and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence has also been highlighted by this Court by referring to the following passages from R.N. Nanjundappa's case, which reads as follows:-
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.12 "If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment."
Further Constitution Bench referred to in B.N. Nagarajun's case in Para 16 of the judgment and stated as follows:
"We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization."
22. In State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429 the Apex Court, having considered the judgments in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) 2006 (4) SCC 1; M. Raja vs. CEERI Educational Society, Pilani 2006 (12) SCC 366; S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand 2007 (8) SCC 279; Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank Limited vs. Mehar Chand 2007 (15) SCC 680, and Official Liquidator vs. Daya Nand 2008 (10) SCC 1, reiterated the well-settled principles of regularisation and parity in pay as follows:-
"12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularization and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 21 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by an temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.13 would be `litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily- wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.."
23. In light of the observations made above, it is evident that the applicants' claim for regularization under the DoPT Scheme of 1993 is untenable. The claim is barred by limitation, as it pertains to events of 1994 with no satisfactory explanation provided for the inordinate delay in approaching the Tribunal. Further, the applicants failed to fulfill the eligibility criteria of the scheme including the requirement of continuous service for 240 days and engagement as casual laborers on the scheme's commencement date. The principle of res judicata also applies, as similar claims were earlier dismissed and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In light of these facts, the Tribunal finds no merit in the application. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
24. No order as to costs.
All the pending MAs shall be treated as disposed of accordingly.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA