Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ramesh Kumar Son Of Shri Mohan Lal R/O ... vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) on 25 March, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Order reserved on: 25.03.2013
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1096-HP of 2012
Chandigarh, this the day of April , 2013
CORAM: HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A)
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J)
Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Mohan Lal r/o Village & P.O. Gokhra, TEhsil Sadar, District Mandi, (H.P).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: MS. ANJULA S. KHAJURIA
VERSUS
1.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), through its Managing Director, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.Chief General Manager, BSNL, H.P. Cirlce, Shimla District Shimla, (H.P.).
3.General Manager, BSNL, Mandi Division, Mandi, H.P.
4.Divisional Manager (Admn), Telecom District, BSNL, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
5.Junior Telecom Officer, Telephone Exchange Gokhra, Mandi, District, Mandi, H.P.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SH. K.S. RATHORE
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J):-
1.By means of present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985, the applicant seeking quashing of orders dated 4.10.2011 (Annexure A-9), by which the claim of the applicant has been rejected for grant of full time casual labourer status to the applicant w.e.f. due date i.e. 2000.
2.The applicant filed O.A. No. 972-HP-2010, which had been disposed of on 28.7.2011, with directions that the competent authority shall announce its mind by recording a well-reasoned order addressing all the items of the grievance raised by the applicant herein and the exercise shall, positively, be concluded within two months from that date and till such time the consideration at the hands of the competent authority comes about, the services of the applicant shall not be dispensed with. Pursuant to said directions the impugned order (Annexure A-9) has been passed by the respondent authorities.
3.The brief facts leading to this O.A. are to be noticed first. The applicant initially joined the respondent department as part-time Sweeper on 1.4.1994 and posted at Telephone Exchange, Gokhra District Mandi. On 29.9.2000, the respondent department issued a circular to all the CGMs Telecom Circles, Districts, All Heads of other Administrative Offices, All the IFAs Telecom Circles/Districts and other Administrative Units for regularization of casual/part-time casual labourers, who were working for four or more hours per day whereby it has been decided to convert them into full time casual labourers in terms of letter dated 16.9.1999 and the casual labourers who were working less than 4 hours they were to be converted into full time casual labourers in terms of letter dated 25.8.2000.
4.It is the case of the applicant that since he was working with the respondent department since 1994, therefore, in terms of the letter dated 29.9.2000, he became eligible to be converted into full time casual labourers. It is further case of the applicant that despite being fully eligible in terms of said letter, he has not been controverted into full time casual labourers and the persons who were engaged later the applicant, they have been granted status of full time casual labourers. Faced with the hostile attitude at the hands of the respondents, the applicant had approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. NO. 972-HP-2010 which was disposed of with the directions to consider his claim. It is thereafter the impugned order dated 4.10.2011, rejecting his claim for grant of full time casual labourer has been passed. Hence, the present O.A.
5.Pursuant to the notice, the respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed written statement, taking therein a preliminary objection and admitted that the applicant was engaged as a part time safai workers on 1.4.1994 and he is still working as such. It is also submitted that in terms of letter dated 25.8.2000 the part time workers were to be adjusted against the vacant post of Group-D posts only where there was shortage of Group-D staff after accounting all the temporary status mazdoors (TSM) and existing casual labourers and no new posts should be created for this purpose and it was the one time relaxation and not a continuous process. It is also averred that persons junior to the applicant are still working as part time sweeper and question does not arise to extend the benefit to the applicant as claimed in the O.A.
6.The applicant has filed a rejoinder, contradicting the averment made in the reply statement. It is submitted that the respondents vide their letter dated 16th May, 2012 decided to convert full time casual labourer, therefore his case also to be considered accordingly.
7.We have heard Ms. Anjula Khajuria, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sh. K.S. Rathore, the learned Sr. CGSC.
8.The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 4.10.2011 having been passed pursuant to directions of this Tribunal dated 28.7.2011 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory because while rejecting the claim of the applicant for grant of full time casual labourer status the respondents have not considered their own circular dated 29.9.2000 wherein it has been categorically decided to grant temporary status to casual labourers who were eligible on 1.8.1998 and if the cases are still pending then they be forwarded to the Headquarter which can be considered and without giving weightage to the above circular the claim of the applicant has been rejected on flimsy grounds. She, urged that even the respondents have decided to convert the part time casual labourers to full time casual labourers vide their letter 16.5.2012 (Annexure P-10), therefore, the claim of the applicant be also considered in the same lines.
9.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued on the lines of averments made in the reply statement.
10.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have gone through the pleadings available on the record.
11.Undoubtedly, the Department of Telecom Services, New Delhi have issued circular dated 29.9.2000 to all the CGMs, Telecom Circles, Telephone Districts and all the Heads of other Administrative Offices, all the IFAs in Telecom, Circles/Districts and other Administrative Units regarding regularization of casual labourers, perusal of which made it clear that the respondents have decided to regularize the services of casual labourers working with them and who were eligible on 1.8.1998. It was also directed not to engage any casual labourers after this date. All casual labourers who were not eligible for temporary status as on 1.8.1998 were to be disengaged forthwith. It is also made clear that there should be no casual labourer left without temporary status after 1.8.1998. Therefore from the above it is crystal clear that it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for grant of full time casual labourers in terms of above circular. There is no whisper in the reply statement that the case of the applicant was ever considered for grant of full time casual labourer status. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the case of the applicant covers for consideration in terms of above circular because in the same circular it has been stated that if there is still any case of casual labourers left out due to any reasons, that may be referred to the Head Quarters separately. Therefore, the case of the applicant be forwarded to the Headquarter for considering his case in the light of the above policy. This direction become more important when the respondents themselves have decided vide their letter dated 16th May, 2012 by seeking objection from eligible part time safai workers for their conversion to full time casual labourers.
12.In the light of above discussions, the O.A. stands allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent-authorities to reconsider the claim of the applicant in the light of what we have stated above and pass appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13.In the facts and circumstances of the cause there shall no order as to costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER(J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) Dated: .04.2013 `SK