Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Ratan Lal Acharya vs M/O Finance on 24 September, 2018
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH
...
OA No.290/00390/2016 Pronounced on : 24.09.2018
(Reserved on : 18.09.2018)
...
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J)
...
Ratan Lal Acharya son of Shri Hira Lal, aged about 37 years, resident of
Acharyaon Ka Bas, Barmer, last employed on the post of Peon works in the
office of Income Tax Officer Ward, Barmer.
...APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. J.K. Mishra.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry
of Finance, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Statute
Circle, B.D. Road, Jaipur.
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota 'C' Road
Jodhpur.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sunil Bhandari for R1 to R3.
ORDER
...
HON'BLE SMT. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985, wherein the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
i) The impugned order dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A1), and order dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure A2) to extent it provided the same would apply only in respect of the court cases mentioned therein (i.e. not to the non-litigants), may be declared illegal and quashed.
OA No. 290/00390/2016 (Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. UOI & Ors.) 2
ii) The respondents may be directed to make payment to the applicant @ 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the time scale of pay of the Group 'D' staff plus Dearness Allowances per the day rate prescribed rate of matriculate / non-matriculate category vide the said order and applicants allowed with all consequential benefits including the due arrears of difference thereof with effect from 01.07.2008 as has been in respect of similarly situated persons vide letter dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure A5)."
2. The brief facts of the present case as stated by the applicant are that the applicant was initially engaged as daily wages casual worker to work as Casual Peon on September, 2002. He worked as Casual Peon upto August, 2011 and thereafter from February, 2012 to June, 2012 though he remained in employment as Casual Peon, but his wages were being paid through contractor. He further states that he was employed on full time duty of 08 (eight) hours a day and the nature of work entrusted to him was the same as that of regular employee. It is his case that he was allowed to continue in service upto June, 2012 and thereafter he was not taken on duty. It is his plea that as the nature of work entrusted to him and the regular employees is the same, therefore, the casual worker may be paid @ 1/30th of the pay as the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowance for work of eight hours a day. The respondents were pleased to fix and revise the rate of daily wages of the applicants as other similarly situated casual labour, as per the provisions of OM dated 07.06.1988. The DoP&T also issued OM dated 31.05.2004 in respect of merger of 50% DA with the basic pay and the same as applicable to temporary status casual labour and also to casual workers, who are doing the same work as that of the regular worker.
3. The respondents have issued an order dated 09.07.2007 in implementation of the said OM dated 31.05.2004 and the case of the applicant was in the later category. An amount of Rs.164/- per day was fixed for such casual labour which was subsequently revised to Rs.222/-
OA No. 290/00390/2016 (Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. UOI & Ors.) 3 with effect from 01.07.2008 and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.292/- with effect from 01.07.2008, but the same was given effect to from 01.10.2010.
4. The applicant and two others filed OA No.465/2013 titled Devi Lal & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., decided on 27.10.2015 before this Tribunal for seeking a direction to the respondents to engage the applicants (casual labour) on the job on which they were continuing before their disengagement as casual labour. The same was allowed vide its order dated 27.10.2015, but the applicant therein have not been re-engaged and also Contempt Petition filed by them is pending for adjudication.
5. The applicant relies on the case of similarly situated persons as the case of Abdul Kadir & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. in OA No.531/2011, pertaining to the question of reduction of their wages. This Tribunal had examined the matter in detail and had allowed the OA vide its order dated 14.08.2012. The said judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in DB CWP No.49/2013 titled UOI & Ors. Vs. Abdul Kadir & Ors., decided on 22.08.2013. In compliance of the various orders/judgments of this Tribunal as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents issued an order dated 31.12.2015 and the same is in challenge by the applicants at (Annexure A1). The applicants have also challenged the order dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure A2) whereby an order has been passed for making payment in respect of the applicants for the period of working through outsourcing also. The plea of the applicant is that he is entitled to get wages as fixed in the said circular for the period commencing from September, 2002 to August, 2011 and as such the respondents are liable to make payment of arrears.
6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents on 01.06.2017 they opposed the contention of the applicant contending the OA No. 290/00390/2016 (Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. UOI & Ors.) 4 present OA has been filed after a period of five years when the applicant has left the work and ceased to attend the duties as casual worker. They further contended that such a claim cannot be entertained. It is the plea of the respondents that the present OA is liable to be dismissed being time barred by limitation as the cause of action, if any, arose to the applicant was during the period he had worked as a casual worker. The applicant never raised any grievance regarding payment of his wages as has been claimed in the present OA but has now filed the present OA after a period of five years and therefore the same cannot be permitted as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 as the claim put forth by the applicant is time barred.
7. The respondents further stated that the applicant worked with the respondent Department till August, 2011 and with the Contractor from February, 2012 to June, 2012 and the various daily wagers working with the Department had already litigated in the matter of payment of enhanced wages at that point of time whereas the applicant did not raise any grievance at that time, but now has filed the OA belatedly and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed.
8. The respondents further state that it is not a case of recurring cause of action as pleaded by the applicant which entitles him to state that the present OA is within time. The applicant cannot by any means and stretch of imagination be said to be a person aggrieved of the orders dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A1) and 17.03.2016 (Annexure A2) as these orders arose out of the fruits of litigation persisted by other casual workers who were well within time and while working as casual workers. As far as the submissions made by the applicant pertaining to OA No.465/2013 decided by this Tribunal vide its order dated 27.10.2015, the respondents state that the Contempt Petition No.09/2016 filed in the said matter has been OA No. 290/00390/2016 (Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. UOI & Ors.) 5 dismissed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 23.01.2017 as the respondent Department had passed a detailed order dated 26.10.2016 considering the case of the applicant but the request of the applicant could not be acceded to being not eligible in terms of the directions issued by this Tribunal. Also, as far as the case of Abdul Kadir is concerned, the applicant cannot take plea of being similarly situated as the applicant has slept over his rights and approached this Tribunal only in 2016. Therefore, merely submitting that he is similarly placed as Abdul Kadir and he cannot be entitled for seeking identical relief and therefore states that the present OA deserves to be dismissed.
9. The respondents relied on the judgment of Sunil Chauhan Vs. UOI & Ors., in OA No.325/2016, decided on 13.04.2017 passed by this Tribunal and state that it is just identical to the case of applicant and therefore state that the present OA deserves to be dismissed.
10. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicant, it has been stated that number of similarly situated persons were sought to be terminated on the name of outsourcing and the applicants had abandoned the service on their own. The said issue was decided on 29.10.2012 in favour of the applicants in case of Surrender Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. in OA No.17/2012 passed by the Tribunal, in which the relevant para is reproduced hereunder:-
"It has been well proved from evidence and used by the applicants that they have continued in the employment of the respondent organization idol on temporary basis for on casual basis for the period wearing upto 14 years they are on the superior spider still as compared to a person on the streets the play of the respondents that all sub categories of employees have abundant the job is not to be believed in this high noon of unemployment what worries us is that this decision should not become an instrument of wiping out the labour of such employees for the past period after 14 years in certain cases that the detailed para-wise rejoinder to reply is not considered necessary."
OA No. 290/00390/2016 (Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. UOI & Ors.) 6 The rates of wages were revised vide impugned order dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A1). The cause of action arose on the date when the revised pay order was issued. The applicant has filed the present OA on 06.09.2016 but he had to approach the Tribunal within one year as per Section 21 of Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985. It is further stated that the applicant is not claiming any bounty and the claim is for his hard earned money and the accrued benefits cannot otherwise be taken away. In most of the cases, the benefits were given without any protest even but different yardstick is being applied in the case of the applicant, therefore, he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the present OA.
11. Heard Shri J.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sunil Bhandari, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and perused the material placed on record.
12. As stated by the applicant, it is clear that he was working as a casual labour since September, 2002 to August, 2011 and from February, 2012 to June, 2012, he worked with the contractor in the same Department. It is his contention that there is no question of limitation as per letter dated 17.03.2016 as he is seeking similar relief as granted by the Hon'ble High Court in case of Abdul Kadir & Ors. and as the applicant is similarly situated, he also deserves the same benefit. Therefore, as per impugned orders dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A1) and 17.03.2016 (Annexure A2), same relief may be granted to the applicant also.
13. The respondents have stated that it is since five years, the applicant has left the Department since 2012 and is now approaching this Tribunal for seeking benefits as granted to similarly situated persons as Abdul Kadir, which cannot be permitted. Also with regard to the matter of Devi Lal, it is clear that the same was disposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.10.2015, but the C.P. was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2017 as OA No. 290/00390/2016 (Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. UOI & Ors.) 7 the Department had passed detailed order dated 26.10.2016 considering the case of the applicant, but his request was not acceded to.
14. It is not in dispute that the applicant was engaged as daily wage casual labour since September, 2002 and he worked there till August, 2011, thereafter, from February, 2012 to June, 2012, he was working through the contractor with whom he chose to work voluntarily. It is noted that the order dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A1) was issued as a result of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in cases where casual workers had initiated the litigation while they were in service with the respondent Department. If the applicant had been in service, he would perhaps have been covered by the revised rates as per Annexure A1 order. But, since the applicant has left the service of the respondent Department voluntarily in August, 2011 and as he did not raise the issue at that time but has raised the said issue at much belated stage, therefore, his claim for grant of difference of wages in terms of the OM dated 31.12.2015 cannot be considered to be justified.
15. It is very clear that the person who slept over his rights and for the grievance of 2012 has approached this Tribunal only in 2016 cannot seek similar benefits as those persons who have already raised their grievance at much earlier stage, and therefore, question of stating that they are similarly placed as that of Abdul Kadir & Ors. (supra), this cannot be a ground to get identical relief as held by the Apex Court in several judgments i.e. (i) (2015) 1 SCC 347 in the case of State of UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivasthava & Ors. (ii) (2009) 2 SCC 479 in the case of S.S. Balu & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. and (iii) (2007) 2 SCC 725 in the case of A.P. Steel Re-rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
OA No. 290/00390/2016 (Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. UOI & Ors.) 8
16. In view of the submissions made above, it is clear that there is no justification on the part of the applicant to seek identical relief as granted to persons vide orders dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A1) and 17.03.2016 (Annexure A2) and the OA, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) MEMBER (J) Dated: 24.09.2018 Place: Jodhpur /sv/ OA No. 290/00390/2016 (Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. UOI & Ors.)