Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Union Of India Represented By Its ... vs S.Mohan Reddy on 2 December, 2014
Bench: L.Narasimha Reddy, Challa Kodanda Ram
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Writ Appeal No.839 of 2006 02-12-2014 The Union of India represented by its Director and others. ..Appellants. S.Mohan Reddy.Respondent. Counsel for appellants:Sri R.S.Murthy Counsel for Respondent : Sri Krishna Devan <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Writ Appeal No.839 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
(Per the Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) This appeal is filed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and its authorities at different levels, who figured as respondents in W.P.No.9250 of 2005, feeling aggrieved by the judgment rendered therein, by the learned Single Judge, on 20.04.2006.
The sole respondent herein filed the writ petition, claiming conferment of Temporary Status of Group-D Employee, duly challenging the order, dated 21.12.2004, passed by the 1st appellant herein, in this behalf.
The respondent was engaged as Daily Wage Worker initially, on 01.01.1987 by the office of the 3rd appellant for undertaking certain works. That arrangement continued for quite a long time.
In compliance with the directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court, the erstwhile Telecom Department issued a circular, dated 07.11.1989, providing for conferment of Temporary Status on the casual labourers. It was mentioned therein that, such of the casual labourers, who have been engaged prior to 30.03.1985, shall be conferred the Temporary Status, and as regards those who have been engaged thereafter, the matter shall be referred to the Telecom Commission, with relevant particulars and details. The case of the respondent was forwarded by the concerned authority. Since there was no proper response in that behalf, the respondent filed W.P.No.13728 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the respondent. Stating to be in compliance with that, the Assistant General Manager (Legal), CGM Telecom, issued a reply, dated 21.12.2004, to the respondent, informing that he cannot be conferred Temporary Status, since he was not engaged as casual labourer, as on 01.08.1998; he did not put in 240 days of service preceding that date, and that he was not engaged as casual labourer, currently. Challenging the said communication, the writ petition was filed.
The respondent pleaded that none of the reasons mentioned in the letter, dated 21.12.2004, are referable to the scheme framed in circular, dated 07.11.1989, and he was being denied his right to be conferred the Temporary Status.
On behalf of the appellants, a detailed counter-affidavit was filed. They pleaded that the engagement of the respondent was subsequent to 30.03.1985, and that from 1995 onwards, he has been engaged by the Labour Contractor and not by the Department. Other grounds are also urged.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and granted the relief through the order under appeal.
Heard Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Krishna Devan, learned counsel for the respondent.
The scheme to confer Temporary Status on casual labourers was framed through circular dated 07.11.1989, in compliance with the directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court. On 30.03.1985, a letter was addressed by the Department to various authorities to ensure that indiscriminate engagement of casual labourer is not resorted to. Obviously, taking that into account, a paragraph was added in the circular, dated 07.11.1989. It reads:
In view of the above instructions normally no casual labourers engaged after 30.3.1985 would be available for consideration for conferring temporary status. In the unlikely event of there being any cases casual labourers engaged after 30.3.1985 requiring consideration for conferment of temporary status, such cases should be referred to the Telecom Commission with relevant details and particulars regarding the action taken against the officer under whose authorisation/approval the irregular engagement/non retrenchment was resorted to.
No casual labourer who has been recruited after 30.3.1985 should be granted temporary status without specific approval from this office.
From this, it is clear that there is no prohibition, as such, for conferment of Temporary Status on the casual labourer, engaged subsequent to 30.03.1985. The only difference was that the cases of candidates, who were engaged subsequent to that date, were required to be considered by the Telecom Commission. The material placed before this Court discloses that the Telecom Commission, in turn, has conferred the powers, in this behalf, on the respective Appointing Authorities. The case of the respondent was forwarded for conferment of Temporary Status.
The reasons mentioned in the letter, dated 21.12.2004, are as under:
In compliance with the Honble A.P. High Court orders in the above writ petition, the case has been examined by C.G.M. A.P. Circle, Hyderabad. In this connection, the undersigned is directed to communicate that you have not fulfilled the following conditions required to confer Temporary Status to you.
i) You were not engaged as casual labourer as on 1.8.98.
ii) You were not continuously working for a period of 240 days in the preceding one year prior to 1.8.98.
iii) You are not currently engaged as casual labour.
In view of the above, your case for conferment of Temporary Status and subsequent regularisation is rejected.
None of these grounds are referable to the scheme framed under circular, dated 07.11.1989. For all practical purposes, the Officer, who issued the impugned letter, has ignored the scheme and was almost carried away his likes and dislikes, in the context of conferment of Temporary Status. Gross injustice was done to the respondent and the benefits that were otherwise due to him were denied for the past 2 decades. The learned Single Judge has also taken into account the details of the scheme that was framed for the purpose of conferment of Temporary Status and granted relief. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal.
Hence, we dismiss the writ appeal. We direct that the respondent shall be conferred Temporary Status within one month from today, and it shall be effective from the date on which the casual labourers, who were engaged in the year 1987, were conferred the status. However, the respondent shall not be entitled to any back wages for that period. Other benefits, as provided for under the scheme, shall, however, be extended to him. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.
Date:02.12.2014