Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Sarwan Kumar vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 22 November, 2017
| OA No. 374/2013 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 374/2013 Order Reserved on: 26.10.2017 DATE OF ORDER: 2a-\\-2°'). CORAM HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR MONGA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Srawan Kumar S/o late Shri Lachha Ram, aged about 25 years, R/o Village & Post Harsabada, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, Distt. Sikar. .. Applicant Mr. Kuldeep Meena, proxy counsel for Mr. Vijay Saini, counsel for applicant. VERSUS Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Department of Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Subhash Colony, Jodhpur. ....Respondent Mr. T.P. Sharma, counsel for respondent. ORDER
Father of the applicant late Shri Lachha Ram was appointed by the respondent in March, 1987 as Labourer on daily wages basis. His services were terminated by a verbal order on 30.06.1988. Aggrieved against the order of his termination, he sought a reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government had made a reference to Central Industrial Tribunal, Kota for adjudication.
OA No. 374/201 22. The Central Industrial Tribunal, Kota vide its award dated 01.08.2000 answered the reference in favour of the applicant's father by holding that the order dated 30.06.1988 terminating his services was not legal and justified and he was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and 30% back wages from 11.04.1994. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 01.08.2000 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Kota, the respondent herein preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5667/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.12.2010 and the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Kota was modified as follows: -
"The termination of the services of the respondent-workman on 30.06.1988 is not justified and legal and the respondent- workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity in service."
The respondent was still not satisfied with the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur and opted to prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which ultimately came to be dismissed on 12.09.2011.
3, After a long drawn legal battle, the applicant's father was reinstated in service by the respondent-department on 03.03.2012. Unfortunately, he expired on 18.09.2012 just after a period of six months of his reinstatement in service. Thereafter, the applicant's mother submitted an application to respondent with 4 request to grant him employment on compassionate grounds, but no action was taken on the said application and, therefore, the applicant got issued a notice OA No. 374/2013 3 through his counsel on 12.12.2012. The said notice was replied by the respondent declining the claim of the applicant for employment on compassionate grounds on the ground that his father was ordered to be reinstated in service as workman on daily wages basis. Reliance was placed on Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) letter No. 14014/6/94- Estt.(D) dated October 09, 1998 wherein the term "Government servant" is defined as the Government servant appointed on regular basis and not one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or adhoc or contract or re-employment basis. Aggrieved by the said communication, the applicant preferred the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
"(1) The impugned order Annexure-A/1 may kindly be quashed and set aside; and (2) The respondents be directed to:-
(i) Regularise the 24 years of services of the father of the applicant in the light of the Award dt. 1.8.2000 which was then modified by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 3.12.2000 and thus, treating the services of the father of the applicant on regular basis, applicant be given compassionate appointment.
(ii) Pay consequential arrears, if any, in respect of the father of the applicant to the applicant."
4. The respondent was put to notice. Opposing the cause of the applicant, reply was filed with the assertion that the O.A. deserves to be dismissed as the same has been filed at a belated stage. It has further been averred that the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan while modifying the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Kota had ordered for reinstatement of applicant's father in service with continuity of service. Since he OA No. 374/201 was engaged on daily wages basis, therefore, he was ordered to be reinstated in service on 03.03.2012 as casual labourer while implementing the orders of the Hon''ble High Court of Rajasthan.
Since the applicant's father was not a regular employee, therefore, he cannot be granted employment on compassionate Pee grounds.
I have heard learned counsels for both the parties and
5. perused the record.
6. Shri Kuldeep Meena, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant's father was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and uptil the date of his death, ad completed more than 24 years in service and, therefore, he h it would be unfair on the part of the respondent to treat him a bourer. In support of his contention, he relied upon a i : casual la judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar VS. Union of India and Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 113. By he contended that an employee referring the said judgment, served the Government for more than two decades having al labourer. He further contended cannot be termed as a casu even if the applicant's father is not conferred the status of a that the claim of the applicant cannot be regular employee, still the Government of India, Department of declined as Telecommunications, office order No. 268-205/98-STN-II dated 1999 has made a provision for casual 10°" December, employment to the wards of the deceased Mazdoor. He submitted that while relying upon the said circular of the Government of India, this Tribunal in OA No. 491/2005 (Ratni OA No. 374/2013 Devi vs. Union of India_ & Ors.) had issued a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds as casual labourer vide order dated 29° june, 2006. He further pointed out that D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8167/2006 filed by the Union of India against the said order of this Tribunal was dismissed on 02.08.2017 by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.
He, thus, submitted that the applicant cannot be denied the | employment on compassionate grounds.
Shri 1.P. Sharma learned counsel for the
7. Per contra, respondents submitted that the services of the applicant's father s casual labourer in March, 1987 and he was were engaged a terminated on 30.06.1988 because of non-availability of work. as ordered to be reinstated in service as Casual However, he w Labourer by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan vide order In compliance with the said order, the dated 03.12.2010.
licant's father was reinstated in service as Casual Labourer app Learned counsel for the respondents while on 03.03.2012.
referring the Office Memorandum dated October 09, 1998 e of Compassionate Appointments under dealing with the Schem e Central Government, contended that the applicant's father r was not a Government servant as defined th being casual laboure in the said Office Memorandum. He further contended that a ward of casual labourer cannot be extended the benefit of employment on compassionate grounds as the said benefit is available only to the wards of Government servants as per the Office Memorandum dated October 09, 1998. He, thus, prayed A \ for dismissal of the O.A. Di ee OA No. 374/2013 6
8. I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, reveals that the termination of services of applicant's father on 30.06.1988 was illegal and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. After the said order, the applicant's father was allowed to join his services on 03.03.2012. Unfortunately, he expired on 18.09.2012. Since he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service, therefore uptil the date of his death, he had completed more than 24 years of service. Even if the applicant's father is treated to be a casual Mazdoor uptil the date of his death, still the applicant's claim for compassionate employment could be considered by the respondent in view of Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, office order No. 268-205/98-STN-II dated 10! December, 1999. It appears that the respondent- department has remained oblivious about the said office order while declining the claim of the applicant for employment on compassionate grounds. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at jaipur, while dealing with the said office order dated 10"
December, 1999 in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ratni pevi & Anr., DB Civil Writ Petition No. 8167/2006 (supra) has already held that the said office order supplements the existing policy: Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the claim of the applicant for grant of employment on compassionate grounds has been illegally declined by the respondent-department.
9, In the conspectus of discussions in the foregoing paras, the instant Original Application succeeds. The respondent-OA No. 374/2013
department is directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for grant of employment on compassionate grounds in the light of Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, office order No. 268-205/98-STN-II dated 10'° December, 1999 and pass an appropriate order in this regard. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However there shall be no order as to costs.
{ (SURESH KUMAR MONGA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Kumawat