Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mukh Ram vs M/O Agriculture on 20 January, 2023
OA No. 1448 of 2014
Reserved
(On 05.01.2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Dated: This the 20th day of January 2023
Original Application No. 1448 of 2014
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Mukh Ram, a/a 45 years, S/o Shri Banwari Lal, R/o Mohalla - Jogi
Nawada, Old City, Post University, District Bareilly. Present
address: Mohalla Ganesh Nagar, Gali No. 3, Post Nekpur, District
Bareilly.
. . .Applicant
By Adv : Shri Manoj Dhrubvanshi
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture,
Government 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 (UP).
4. Ram Das, Muzdoor (IVRI) Izzat Nagar, Bareilly.
5. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment) Lab. Attendant (Group „D‟)
Post IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly.
. . .Respondents
By Adv: Shri N.P. Singh
ORDER
This OA, under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 is filed seeking relief to issue suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to implement the order issued by the ICAR, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi on 23.11.1994 for grant of temporary status shown as Annexure A-12 to the OA in the case of the applicant with all consequential benefits. To issue suitable further order or direction by way of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to decide representations of the Page 1 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 applicant by reasoned and speaking order and issue suitable order or direction by way of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to pass order in the case of applicant as passed in the case of Jai Pal Kashyap CL as per the order of this Tribunal and Hon‟ble High Court Judgment and also pass order considering the case of this Tribunal and the case of Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ram Das in similarly situated condition or issue any other suitable order as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.
2. The facts of the case as per the applicant is, that the applicant is working as contract labour under Contract Labour Act 1970. Further DOPT New Delhi issue OM dated 13.10.1983 for regularization of casual employee in Group „D‟ post. The applicant says that the said OM is applicable to him. The ICAR issue letter on 29.03.1984 for engagement of casual labours and he says that same is applicable to the applicant. Further, DOPT issue OM dated 07.06.1998 for recruitment of casual workers and persons of daily wages under review policy. The said OM is applicable to the applicant. The applicant was initially engaged as casual labours in the department in the year 1988, since then he was discharging his duties continuously till 15.08.1995 and had completed 1380 days and thereafter applicant was engaged under the control and supervision of the registered contractor in the department. It is mentionable here that authority concerned had issued working certificates in the name of applicant. The caste certificate issued by the concerned authority on 19.11.1997 in the name of the applicant. One casual labour, Shri Jaipal Kashyap filed a writ petition No. 34493 of 1992 dated 16.09.1992 in the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Page 2 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 Court and order was passed in favour of Sri Jaipal Kashyap for continuation in service. The said order is also applicable to the applicant. Photocopy of the order of Hon‟ble High Court is enclosed. He further says that the applicant filed OA No. 94 of 1993 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal has granted the stay order dated 26.05.1993 in favour of the applicant and also directed the respondents not to disturb him from the working till further orders. The Assistant Administrative Officer of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly issued order on 19.05.1993 of sanction for engaging applicant as per this Tribunal stay order dated 27.05.1993 passed in OA No. 825 of 1993 and also in OA No. 94 of 1993 stay order dated 26.05.1993. The Assistant Administrative Officer (legal cell) of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly sent a letter on 26.07.1993 to the Administrative Officer, E-IV Section, IVRI Izzat Nagar, Bareilly regarding continuation of applicant on the work. Further he says that the DOPT New Delhi issued OM on 10.09.1993 for regularization of casual labours and granting temporary status and the said OM is totally applicable in the case of the applicant and lawfully entitled for grant of temporary status. Photocopy of the OM dated 10.09.1993 is enclosed as annexure A-10. He further says that the Director IVRI, Izzat Nagar issued letter on 06.07.1994 for recruitment of Assistant Helper - I, i.e. Group „D‟ post without any information to the applicant, leaving aside regularization of the applicant illegally, unlawfully and against policy of Government of India. The ICAR issued letter on 23.11.1994 for granting temporary status to the casual labours The applicant made a representation on 19.12.1994 to Senior Administrative Officer IVRI Izzat Nagar, Bareilly for granting temporary status to the applicant. Further, the applicant alongwith others filed SLP No. 16426 (C) of 1995 in the Page 3 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 Hon‟ble Supreme Court, Ram Sewak and others vs. Union of India and others for their rightful claims of regularization and continuance in service with the respondent No. 3 and the same has been disposed of on 31.07.1995.
3. The department had invited application form for appointment as Assistant employee Category I Mazdoor in the grade pay of Rs. 750 - 940 in the department only as registered casual labours who have been working as casual labours in the office of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the applicant had submitted his application before the concerned authority on 19.03.1996 for appointment on the post of Mazdoor, but the respondents have not taken any action on the application of the applicant. Further, the applicant has made a representation to higher authority on 04.02.1997 for granting temporary status to the applicant as per circular issued by the Government of India. The IVRI issued letter on 25.02.1997 to all the subordinate authorities to discourage engaging contract labours. One casual labour Shri Ram Das filed OA NO. 377 of 1996, Ram Das vs. UOI and others. The said case was decided on 11.09.2001 in favour of Ram Das with direction to the respondents to reinstate him as temporary status casual labour. The said judgment is fully applicable in the case of the applicant. He further says that Jaipal Kashyap casual labour of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly filed OA No. 502 of 2002 - Jaipal Kashyap vs UOI and other and the same was decided on 30.05.2002 in favour of Jaipal Kashyap. The said judgment is applicant in the case of the applicant. He further says that Jaipal Kashyap again filed OA No. 1076 of 2004 before this Tribunal for granting temporary status and the same was decided on Page 4 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 19.10.2005 in favour of Jaipal Kashyap and thereafter the respondents IVRI has filed CMWP No. 7257 of 2006 on 07.02.2006 in Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court against the order passed by this Tribunal dated 19.10.2005 in OA No. 1076 of 2004. The Hon‟ble High Court not granted stay and issued notices to the respondents. The direction of this Tribunal was to reinstate and grant him temporary status and also to pay arrears of pay and allowances to Jaipal Kashyap. The said judgment is totally applicant in the case of the applicant. He further says that Hon‟ble Supreme Court delivered a judgment on 04.04.2007 Secretary, HSEB (Haryana) Stated Electricity Board vs. Suresh & others on the issue of abolition contract labours. The contract labours be treated as the employee of the main employer. The said judgment is totally applicable to the case of the applicant for the purpose of regularization of temporary status. He further says that authorities issued appointment letter on 12.02.2008 to Jaipal Kashyap granting him temporary status being similarly situated. The Hon‟ble High Court delivered a judgment on 29.05.2012 in Writ Petition No. 36752 of 2001filed by the IVRI Izzat Nagar Bareilly vs. CAT and others i.e. Ram Das. The said judgment is totally applicable to the applicant. The Director, IVRI Izzat Nagar, Bareilly issued appointment letter on 09.04.2013 to Ram Das in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 11.09.2001 and subsequent order of Hon‟ble High Court dated 29.05.2012 and SLP filed by the IVRI Director, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly dismissed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 05.03.2013. The said judgment is totally applicant in the case of the applicant being similarly situated condition entitled for grant of temporary status.
Page 5 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014
4. The applicant made a representation on 23.05.2013, 07.01.2014 and 01.02.2014 to the respondents and stating therein that he was working from the year 1998 to 15.09.1995 (Six years and 8 months) and also worked as casual labour in their organization as well as with labour contractor of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly and requested to respondent No. 3 to grant him temporary status as the same has been given to his juniors i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as per the CAT Allahabad and Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgments with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances with 18% penal interest. He further says that in view of the above the applicant is challenging inaction of the respondents for not granting him temporary status as granted to his juniors i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the applicant further prayed to this Tribunal to issue suitable direction by way of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to grant temporary status to the applicant with all consequential benefits.
5. On behalf of the respondents counter affidavit has been filed in which the respondents have submitted that the casual labourers are always engaged for specific work of casual nature and after completion of the work they were disengaged. The case relates to grant of temporary status to the casual labourers by the DOPT Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and accepted to grant of temporary status as per circular dated 10.09.1993 introduce by the DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and accepted by ICAR vide its letter dated 23.11.1994. The applicant is wrongly trying to link case with the Abolition of Contract Labour Act. It is further submitted that there is no relation between Contract Labour Abolition Act, 1070 Page 6 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 and the relief sought by the applicant. The OM dated 13.10.1983 is not applicable as DOPT has formulated a scheme for grant of temporary workers in pursuance of the CAT, Principal Bench judgment dated 16.02.1990 in the case of Shri Raj Kamal and others vs. UOI and others. The applicant cannot be given temporary status as he has not completed the twin conditions of the DOPTs scheme for grant of temporary status. Hence, he has not been considered for grant of temporary status. Further, the respondents ICAR has issued some guidelines for engaging casual labours and institute has complied the same. Further they say that the general terms and conditions for engagement and continuance of casual workers are related to the procedure to be adopted for grant of necessary facilities and step by step adjusting the staff and also about engaging casual labours only for the specific period. This is not concerned with the grant of temporary status to the casual workers. They further say that as per registration card for casual workers maintained at this Institute Shri Mukh Ram had worked for 85 days in 1998, 178 days in 1989, 182 days in 1990, 16 days in 1991 and 70 days in 1992 for the period under litigious employment under stay order from 01.07.1973 to 31.09.1994 was 456 days. They also say that the applicant cannot be given temporary status as he has not completed the twin conditions of the DOPTs scheme for rendering 240 days service in any year and holding the position of casual worker on the date of introduction of the scheme i.e. 01.09.1993. This scheme was not a continuous scheme and it is one time relaxation from the Government. Further because a casual workers had continued under cover of an order of the Court which is described as „Litigious‟ employment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or being given Page 7 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 temporary status. They further says that because a casual labour had continued under cover of an order of the Court, which is described as litigious employment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. The engagement of the applicant was not made on regular basis in terms of regular relevant rules, when there was not work being done by the casual labour, he was disengaged. The said order dated 16.09.1992 cannot be applicable on the applicant as the orders of Hon‟ble Courts was specific for Shri Jaipal Kashyap. The respondents have further submitted that the on the basis of interim order of the Court mentioned in para 4.9 of the OA, the applicant cannot be given temporary status as he has not completed the twin conditions of the DOPT scheme for grant of temporary status on 01.09.1993 i.e. the date on which the scheme came into force and this scheme was not a permanent scheme. Merely because a casual labour had continued under cover of an order of the Court, which is described as litigious employment and he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. They have further submitted that the respondents organization had honoured the interim order passed by this Tribunal and contested the case by filing a detailed counter affidavit and stay vacation application and got the case dismissed vide order dated 24.12.1994 through the leading case of Munna Lal and others vs. UOI and others. They have further stated that the contents of paragraph No. 4.11 of the OA are not admitted and submitted that in the said scheme the temporary status could be conferred on all casual labours who are on employment on the date of issue of OM i.e. 10.09.1993 and therefore, the applicant‟s claim for temporary status or regularization doe not arise. The contents Page 8 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 of paragraph No. 4.12 of the OA are denied and submitted that the recruitment process initiated for the post of SS Grade - I Mazdoor was cancelled to provide full opportunity to the casual labours in direct recruitment and it was done by wide publication to all concerned and it was wrong to say that the applicant was not informed individually. It was displayed in the notice board and was very well in the notice of the applicant.
6. He further submits that the contents of paragraph No. 4.14 of the OA are not admitted from the record it appears that the representation dated 19.12.1994 does not appear to have been received in the office of the respondents. They further says that Shri Mukh Ram was not fulfilling the required conditions prescribed in DOPT scheme for grant of temporary status to casual worker, the question of acceding to his request for grant of temporary status did not arise. They have further submitted that the contents of paragraph No. 4.15 of the OA are denied. The applicant should have come with certified copy of the judgment dated 31.07.1995 in SLP (C) 16462 of 1995 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In the case of said SLP no notice has been issued to the respondents it means that the SLP regarding regularization has been dismissed at its admission stage. They have further submitted that the averments of paragraph No. 4.16 of the OA are denied. There is no record to show that the application was received in the officer nor the applicant has submitted any evidence for submission of his application for appointment to the post of supporting staff Grade I (Mazdoor). Therefore, contents of this paragraph are not admitted. The casual labours which were found eligible for being appointed as regular supporting staff were only appointed to the said post Page 9 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 after observing all the requirements of recruitment by a duly constituted committee. It is further submitted that the contents of paragraph No. 4.18 of the OA are not admitted. The applicant has not submitted any evidence for submission of his representation dated 04.02.1997. Since Shri Mukh Ram did not work in the institute for a period of over 240 days in any year except the period of litigious appointment due to stay order of the Court during the year 1993 - 1994 and therefore, there was no scope of granting him temporary status on the ground given by him. It is further submitted that the contents of paragraph No. 4.18 of the OA are not admitted. The letter dated 25.02.1997 was issued by the IVRI administration for discouraging the practice of carrying out labour work through contract. This is not concerned with granting the temporary status of regularization as claimed by the applicant. It is further submitted that the contents of paragraph No. 4.19 of the OA are not admitted. The applicant is not entitled for any parity with the case as the case of Shri Ram Das was on the basis of pronouncement made by Court. The institute has not provided temporary status to Shri Ram Das in the light of DOPT scheme dated 19.09.1993 adopted by ICAR and say that the applicant has no any right for parity with Ram‟s case as stated. Further the contents of paragraph Nos. 4.20 of the OA are denied. In fact this Tribunal vide orders dated 30.05.2002 in OA No. 502 of 2002 Jaipal Kashyap vs. UOI and others passed the orders to the respondents to decide his representation and accordingly his representation was considered in the light of the existing rules and the scheme of DOPT and could not be acceded to as the case was not covered under the said scheme. Therefore, the said order is not applicable in the case of Shri Mukh Ram. They have further submitted that Page 10 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 the contents of paragraph No. 4.21 are not admitted. The clarification are not applicable in the case of Mukh Ram because the institute filed a writ petition in the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court against the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1076 of 2004 in which following observations were made:-
"The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, however it is classified that any observations made in this judgment shall not be treated to be precedent in other cases."
7. From the above it is clear that the decision was restricted only up to the case of Shri Jaipal Kashyap and the benefits of the decision cannot be extended to other persons similarly situated. They further say that the contents of paragraph No. 4.22 of the OA are not admitted. The law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, HSRB (Haryana Electricity Board) vs. Suresh and other is not applicable in the present controversy because the said judgment has been delivered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the point of abolition of contract labours. This issue involved in the present case is regarding granting for temporary status and regularization. The matter of regularization / temporary status has already been dealt by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a leading case i.e. State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi in which Hon‟ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the back door entry should be immediately stopped and the casual labours may not be regularized on the ground of their long officiating / working. In the instant case the applicant is seeking temporary status / regularization on the basis of his past working in the respondents organization i.e. on the basis of interim order granted by this Tribunal. It is further submitted that the aforesaid controversy in which the applicant has got interim order, has already been finally decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court against the applicant. In the Page 11 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 above circumstances there is no occasion for the applicant to knock the door of law on the basis of past pleadings and the past judgment and citations given by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as well as coordinate Courts. Therefore, in view of conditions of the scheme of DOPT, caution of Hon‟ble Court in the case of Jaipal Kashyap and OM dated 26.09.2006, the request of the applicant for grant of temporary status cannot be accepted.
8. They further submitted that the contents of paragraph No. 4.23 of the OA are not admitted and say that it is not relevant in the present case because while disposing the writ petition the Hon‟ble High Court observed. "The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, however it is certified that any observation made in this judgment shall not be treated to be precedent in other cases". Therefore, in the present case the applicant is wrongly seeking parity with the case of Shri Jaipal Kashyap when the Hon‟ble High Court has already restricted not to extend the benefit of that judgment to any other person. They have further submitted that the paragraph No. 4.24 of the OA are not admitted. The institute has not given temporary status as per the scheme of DOPT dated 10.09.1993 to Shri Ram Das. He was given temporary status by the order of Hon‟ble Court. It is further submitted that Shri Ram Das has continued his claim for temporary status since 1996 and the aforesaid pronouncement the Director, IVRI has filed writ petition No. 36752 of 2001 and this writ petition has been decided vide judgment dated 29.05.2012 against the respondents organization. The judgment dated 29.05.2012 has been challenged by the respondents before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court affirmed the said judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Page 12 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 High Court vide order dated 05.03.2013. In compliance of the aforesaid orders, the IVRI has issued office order dated 09.04.2013 granting the temporary status in favour of Shri Ram Das w.e.f. 01.06.1995 as petitioner in the orders of this Tribunal. They further say that in the instant case no any such type of proceedings has been initiated by the applicant since the date of his disengagement from the IVRI. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled of the benefits which has been extended to Shri Ram Das and Jaipal Kashyap, because he has not completed the twin conditions enumerated in temporary status scheme dated 10.09.1993. They further says that the contents of paragraph No. 4.25 of the OA are denied. The institute has not given temporary status as per the scheme of DOPT dated 10.09.1993 to Shri Ram Das. He was given temporary status by the order of Court.
9. They further says that the contents of paragraph No. 4.26 of the OA are not admitted. The applications dated 28.05.2013 and 07.01.2014 do not appear to have been received to the institute and moreover Shri Mukh Ram has not produced any receipt of Registry / Speed Post with the copies attached. They have further submitted that the institute has received his last application dated 01.10.2014 but before reply could be issued the applicant has already filed this original application before this Tribunal. They have further submitted that the contents of paragraph No. 4.27 of the OA are denied. The applicant does not fulfil the twin conditions of the scheme introduced by the DOPT. Further, merely because casual worker had continued under cover of an order of Court which is described as litigious employment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in service. It is Page 13 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 further submitted that the engagement of the applicant is not made on regular basis in terms of relevant rules. When there was no work for being done by the casual workers, they were disengaged. As such their claim for temporary status or regularization does not arise. The institute has not given temporary status as per the scheme of DOPT dated 10.09.1993 to Shri Ram Das and Shri Jaipal Kashyap. They have been given temporary status by the order of Court. The applicant has prayed this Tribunal to direct the respondent No. 3 to decide his representation dated 07.01.2014 but his request cannot be acceded to because he does not fulfil the twin conditions for grant of temporary status as required in the scheme of DOPT. He further submits that the ground taken in support of the OA are not legal and valid and are not tenable in the eyes of law, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed with cost.
10. In the rejoinder affidavit the applicant has reiterated the contents of the OA. He has further sought the relief from this Tribunal requesting to issue direction to give parity to similarly situated persons having been granted by the department as per the ICAR, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi instruction dated 23.11.1994. He further says that the Absorption of the Contract Labour Act, 1970 is also applicable to him and Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment on contract labour is applicable to him. They further say that the judgment dated 16.02.1990 of Raj Kamal and others vs. Union of India and others which is the scheme of granting temporary status has been made by the DOPT, New Delhi and applicant fulfils the condition of scheme for granting temporary status. He further submits that ICAR letter dated 29.03.1984 is relevant to him. The respondents did not comply to that guidelines. The ratio of Page 14 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 Surinder Singh and others vs. UOI and others by Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 17.01.1986 is applicable to him. He further says that the applicant has completed 1380 days as casual labour from 1988 to 15.08.1995 in the department. He further says that the applicant had completed 595 days continuously as casual labour from 19.06.1993 to 15.05.1995 and assert that the applicant was in service on 01.09.1993 and also completed 240 days work continuously and he is entitled to grant temporary status as per junior Shri Ram Das who have given temporary status on 09.04.2013 in compliance of the order dated 11.03.2001 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 377 of 1996 and the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. He further says that litigious employment has been raised in the case of Ram Das before this Tribunal, which is at page 70 of this OA as under:-
"Applicant is not legally entitled for the period of the services rendered by him during the period 20.06.1993 to 31.05.1995 as during this period he worked under the strength of the interim order passed by this Tribunal"
11. After considering the all facts, the said OA was allowed on 11.09.2001 which was implemented by the respondents on 09.04.2013. Hence, the aforesaid case is totally applicable in the case of the applicant being similarly placed person. He further says that the interim order which was granted on 26.05.1993 in OA No. 94 of 1993 Mukh Ram vs. Union of India and others the respondents have issued letter dated 19.06.1993 for the engagement of applicant as casual labour until further order. He further mentions that several OA has been filed against disengagement / termination of casual services of the casual labours and all the OAs were connected with OA No. 1336 of 1993 Munna Lal and others vs. Union of India and others which was Page 15 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 dismissed on 16.12.1994. they point out that the aforesaid facts has been raised and considered in the case of Ram Das, which is filed at page 61 of the OA, by this Tribunal and the said OA was allowed on 26.09.2001 against that order the respondents have filed CMWP No. 36752 of 2001 which was also dismissed on 29.05.2012. Thereafter, SLP was filed before Hon‟ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 03.03.2013. Thereafter, the respondents have implemented the orders and given temporary status to the similarly placed persons i.e. Ram Das which is totally applicable to the applicant and he is entitled for grant of temporary status so the OA should be allowed. He further asserts that starting the proceedings to recruit regular workers without granting temporary status to the existing deserving persons like applicant was ignoring the due claim of the applicant and that the applicant was fulfilling the condition prescribed by the DOPT scheme for granting temporary status as he completed 240 days in a calendar year and he was also in service on 10.09.1993. He further says that the respondents themselves have admitted in para 13 of counter affidavit that the applicant had completed 456 days continuously as per the stay order passed by this Tribunal and they asserts that leading case No. 1336 of 1993 Munna Lal and others dated 15.12.1994 in which the Tribunal clearly held that the interim order was vacated only and did not say anything about the consequences arising out of services rendered by the applicant while dismissing the OA. He asserts that the aforesaid facts have been taken by the respondents in the case of Ram Das which is allowed by this Tribunal (which is at page 71 of this OA) meaning thereby the period of interim order would be counted for granting temporary status. The said judgment has been conferred by the Page 16 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 Hon‟ble Supreme Court, thereafter, the respondents have complied with the judgment passed by this Tribunal. He further avers that in the case of Sri Ram Das and Sri Jaipal Kashyap who have been given temporary status in the department, applicant is similarly situated person, he is entitled for granting temporary status in the department and that Hon‟ble Supreme Court had deprecated the view of the state to provoke the applicant to seek benefits of orders only before the court for filing cases to grant similar benefits of orders. He further asserts that Uma Devi case is not applicable to the case of the applicant as the said plea is not taken in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipal Kashyap and Ram Das. Hence he prayed to allow the OA.
12. Both the counsel of the applicant and the respondents were present on 05.01.2023 and arguments of both the counsel were heard.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant reiterating the contents of the OA and the rejoinder. Further, he took a new additional stand that this OA should be kept pending as similar applications are still pending before the Hon‟ble Apex Court which may be relevant to this case, but they could not substantiate how they were relevant and why these proceedings should be stopped and kept pending. Hence, the said contention was not accepted.
14. I have gone through the record and scrutinised the contention of rival parties. From the averments of the applicant and the facts of the case it is evident that the applicant takes various contentions at various points of time has not firm in taking any clear Page 17 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 and single line of evidence to prove their case, important being following:-
i. He is eligible as per the scheme of things as per the DOPT order for giving temporary status to certain workers, which was adopted by the ICAR on 10.09.1993, wherein specifically they rely on para 4 (i) 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). As per this conditions laid down was that the workers should be in employment on the date relevant i.e. 10.09.1993 also on that date they should have been continuously employment for at least 240 days in a year, which means a financial year. The applicant has not submitted their service details as to year wise how many days of service they have rendered, but the respondents have furnished in their counter affidavit at page 37, the registration card of casual labour of IVRI Izzat Nagar UP of the present applicant and also tabulated the year wise work in their parawise counter affidavit at page 15 and 165 which is not controverter through any evidence by the applicant. Hence, they can be taken as true representation of facts, in which they clearly say that on the date of the said circular under the cover of stay order of the Courts where cases were pending, the applicant was continuing in service and before that date in none of the years the applicant had completed 240 days of service as in 1988 (85 days), 1989 (178 days), 1990 (182 days), 1991 (16 days) and 1992 (70 days) he had worked, and under litigious employment between 01.07.1973 to 31.09.1994 (456 days) he was in employment. So there is no case Page 18 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 for the applicant to directly get the benefit of employment as temporary status under the circular date 10.09.1993 as he does not complete the criteria of 240 days employment clear of litigious employment as well as his existing employment to the said date or the appointed date of 01.09.1993 in that circular dated 10.09.1993.
Hence, the case of the applicant in simple terms of said OM of DOPT is clearly not eligible.
ii. The second contention taken by the applicant is that he is contract labour under Contract Labour Act, he must get benefit of Contract Labour Abolition Act and other relevant provisions and pronouncement of the Courts. But contract labour act makes his case even less convincing because once he has accepted the contract labour status long back (in 1995) and has not continuously contested the same since then on estopple will operate for him to contest alternative status subsequently. Also he is being contract labour, doesn‟t provide him any relief under Contract Labour Act or as at this late stage getting a tag of temporary status because he was continuing as contract labour.
iii. Thirdly, he wants temporary status by quoting the case of Jaipal Kashyap and Ram Das similarly placed persons like him and whatever relief has been granted in their case by various Courts and complied by the respondents should be made applicable to the applicant and he should be given all consequential reliefs. That is why he requested that his applications to the respondents dated 28.05.2013, 07.01.2014 and 01.10.2014 should be decided by the respondents granting him relief as similarly placed persons eligible to be notified as temporary status as he was in employment on the Page 19 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014 relevant date as per the OM of the DOPT and he has completed 240 days as the respective applicants in those two litigations also had. He further tries to show that his case is similar because they were also considered by the Courts, although their case also had 240 days employments on the specific date notified in the OM being of the nature of litigious employment.
iv. The respondents have denied existence of letter dated 28.05.2013 and 07.01.2014, and from the very appearance of those 2 letters on record they do not show if it was received in the office as only receipt is shown for the letter dated 01.10.2014 with seal, and based on the averments of the applicant or respondents in their counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, it may be safely taken that 01.10.2014 is the date when first time after a long time the applicant has moved the authority to get the benefit of temporary status as in the respective cases of Jaipal Kashyap and Ram Das. v. No grounds are mentioned why there is such inordinate delay in filing this application on 01.10.2014. Hence, there is no ground to condone any delay for directing the respondents to consider the same at this delayed stage procedurally. Further more, there is substantively also no ground to make comparison between the referred cases and the instant case as those orders are not in rem but in personem. In the case of Mukh Ram the Hon‟ble High Court has clearly mentioned that, "the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, it is certified that any observation made in this judgment should not be treated as precedent in the other cases".
Page 20 of 21 OA No. 1448 of 2014
14. So no relief can be granted to the applicant under comparative similarity arguments as forwarded as the third line of basis for relief.
15. Considering all the above facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any merit to interfere in the affairs of the authorities, and hence the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) Member (A) /Piyush/ Page 21 of 21