Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Krishna Pal S/O Late Shri Kishan Lal vs Du`Rairaj Reported In Jt 2011 (3) Sc 254 on 20 April, 2012
(RESERVED) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ALLAHABAD this the 20th day of April 2012. HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1872 OF 2010 1. Krishna Pal S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal, R/o Village Beerupur, Maqrooka, District Bareilly. 2. Kunwar Sen S/o Sri Ram Lal, R/o Village Itana Beniram, P.O. University, Bareilly. 3. Pyare lal S/o Sri Chhiman Lal, R/o Village Bhoora, P.O. Bilbs, District Bareilly. 4. Bhagwan Das S/o Shri Hari Lal, R/o Richha, Tehsil Baheli, District Bareilly. 5. Mahendra Pal son of Shri Loki Ram, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Rohilkhand University, District Bareilly. 6. Dori Lal son of Sri Ganesh Prasad, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Rohilkhand University, District Bareilly. 7. Deen Dayal son of Sri Baldeo Prasad, R/o Village Khajuria Sampatti Tehsil Faridpur, District Bareilly. 8. Ram Das son of Sri Gendan Lal, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Rohilkhand University, District Bareilly. 9. Ramesh son of Sri Janki Prasad, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Rohilkhand University, District Bareilly. Applicants VE R S U S 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Izzatnagar, Bareilly, thorugh its Director. 3. Chief Administrative Officer, Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Izzat Nagar, Bareilly. ..Respondents Advocate for the applicant: Shri Manu Saxena Advocate for the Respondents : Sri Narendra Pratap Singh Reserved on 29.3.2012 O R D E R
The applicants have filed the instant O.A. seeking relief against the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 passed by respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent No.2. The applicants had prayed for regularization and continuance of services as Class IV Casual Labour and payment of the pay scale of regular employee as per Minimum Wages Act.
2. The Applicants and their service history is as follows:-
1.
Krishna Pal initially appointed on 28.02.1987 S.C registered with Employment Exchange.
2. Kunwar Sen initially appointed on 28.10.1984, worked for 955 days registered with Employment Exchange.
3. Pyare Lal initially appointed on 12.2.1985 S.C registered with Employment Exchange.
4. Bhagwan Pal initially appointed on 5.8.1989, worked for 1297 days S.C. registered with Employment Exchange.
5. Mahendra Pal initially appointed on 1.1.1987 SC registered with Employment Exchange.
6. Dori Lal initially appointed on 28.10.84 SC registered with Employment Exchange.
7. Deen Dayal initially appointed on 1.02.1986 SC registered with Employment Exchange.
8. Ram Das initially appointed on 1.2.1986 registered with Employment Exchange.
9. Ramesh initially appointed on 14.11.1985 SC registered with Employment Exchange.
All the Applicants had worked for considerable time with artificially induced breaks in service.
3. It is pertinent to give a chronology of the events. Applicant Nos. 1 to 4 together with others had filed writ petition No. 1831 of 1992 jointly with others and were allowed to continue in service vide stay order during disposal of the same. Writ petition was dismissed in 1997. Applicants then filed O.A. No. 61/97 with Central Administrative Tribunal as directed. They were allowed to continue to work. However, under assurance of regularization, they abandoned the said O.A., which was dismissed in default on 31.3.1999. The respondents have allowed other petitioners (7 in number) of Writ Petition No. 1831 of 1992 to work and they are being paid regular salaries.
4. Applicant Nos. 5 9 also filed writ petition NO. 36822 of 1992 before the Honble High Court in which interim stay order was granted on 12.10.1992 and the applicants continued to work. However, they are now not being permitted to work.
5. Similarly some other persons who also filed various O.As have been allowed to work. The persons variously named in paras 4.39 of O.A are Ram Murti Singh, Ram Singh, Chatra Pal, Shanker Lal, Ram Swarup, Ganga Ram and Parmi Lal and Lalta Prasad.
6. ICAR had adopted the Regularization Scheme 1993 framed by DOPT in 1994. Indian Council of Agricultural Research issued another circular dated 12.12.1996 communicating a policy decision for conferring regular status to all Casual Labourers and filling up all vacancies in the department by them only. However, the applicants have been denied consideration under the same.
7. In the matter of Jai Pal Kashyap in O.A. NO. 1076 of 2004 f, the applicant Jai Pal had been working since 1991 and like the case of Applicants in the present O.A., his services were disengaged. The O.A. succeeded and respondents were directed to grant the applicant Shri Jai Pal temporary status under the Scheme of granting temporary status on 1.9.1993.
8. The respondents had filed a writ petition No. 1237 of 2006 against the O.A which was dismissed by the Honble High Court on 4.4.2008.
9. The applicants filed a writ petition NO. 67304 of 2008 before the Honble High Court, Allahabad which was dismissed on 22.4.2010 with the direction to approach the CAT. The Applicants thereafter filed O.A. NO. 1368 of 2010 which was disposed of on 17.9.2010 with the directions to the respondents to decide the application, which was rejected by the respondents by the impugned order, hence the O.A.
10. The respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the O.A. on grounds of not coming within Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the applicants are seeking regularization from the initial date of engagement in the period between 1985-1992 without explaining day to day delay.
11. Further the Applicants were engaged as Casual Labour as and when required in the exigencies of temporary work. The Applicants were engaged as Casual Labour since 1984 to 1989. In terms of Scheme framed by DOPT in 1993, adopted by ICAR in 1994, those casual workers who had fulfilled the eligibility criteria of having put in 240 days (in case of 6 days week) or 205 days (in case of 5 days week) as on 1.9.1993 would be granted Temporary Status.
12. The Applicants had failed to get such status. Although they had filed various writ petitions/O.As before the Honble High Court and Tribunal as noted earlier. Their prayer had ended in failure at the dismissal of last O.A. NO.61/97 in 1999. In between the years, they had been allowed to draw wages etc. on account of interim stay orders. Their status as Litigous Employment employees are not sufficient ground for counting their services or for any kind of regularization contemplated by the policy of regularization of Casual Labour with Temporary Status as available in letter No. F No. 24-25/96-CDN dated 12.12.1996 as they were not eligible casual labour. Persons mentioned in para 5 above were appointed through direct recruitment and then case is different from the Applicants.
13. The Order in O.A. NO. 1076 of 2004 in the Jaipal Kashyap is pertaining to the grant of temporary status and not regularization on any post. The judgment is passed in favour of only the applicant Jaipal Kashyap. Moreover, vide judgment in writ petition No. 7237 of 2006, it was held by the Honble High Court that this judgment shall not be treated to be precedent in other cases.
14. The applicants were not parties in the Jai Pal Kashyap cases. This case also makes a very pertinent observation:-
As regards the preliminary objection, though the Scheme was implemented from 23.11.1994, the records do show that the applicant has been vigilante and has been perusing his matter of regularization right from 1992 and even as per the version of the respondents this is the third round of litigation. Again the impugned order dated 19.07.2004 came to be passed in the wake of an order dated 30.05.2002 in OA 502 of 2002. The claim of the applicant is on the basis of continuous cause of action. As such the limitation does not apply.
15. There is no such record of continuous action on the part of the applicants in this O.A. There is a distinct break between 1999 and 2008 when the matter is sought to be revived in the light of Jaipal Kashyap case. Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 lays down the time limit for litigants to file the application, which is within one year from the date of cause of action which can be extended by another six months, if appeal/representation is not decided.
16. The Applicants have sought to establish a continued cause of action through the narration of the various dates etc. of the service of litigations. They have sought to revive their case through writ petition No. 67304 of 2008 and thereafter through O.A. NO. 1368 of 2010.
17. There is no writ petition/O.A. which was pending between the year 1999 and filing of the O.A. by Jai Pal Kashyap in which the applicants were not parties.
18. They have claimed that the current cause of action arises from the impugned order dated 18.11.2010.
19. In this case, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Du`rairaj reported in JT 2011 (3) SC 254, the Honble Apex Court has held as under:-
14. This is a typical case where an employee gives a representation in a matter which is stale and old, after two decades and gets a direction of the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the same, and thereafter again approaches the Tribunal alleging that there is delay in disposal of the representation (or if there is an order rejecting the representation, then file an application to challenge the rejection, treating the date of rejection of the representation as the date of cause of action). This Court had occasion to examine such situations in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (JT 2009 (15) SC 70: 2010(2) SCC 58) and held as follows:-
The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of Respondent without examining the merits, and directing appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. Xxxxx When a belated representation in regard to a stale or dead issue dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviewing the dead issue or time barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a courts direction. Neither a courts direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extended the limitation. Or erase the delay and laches.
A Court or Tribunal before directing consideration of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a live issue or whether it is with reference to a dead or stale issue or dispute, the Court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or Tribunal deciding to direct consideration without itself examining of the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does not expressly say so, that would be legal position and effect.
20. Since there is neither any reason for explaining the delay, nor indeed a prayer for it. There are no cogent grounds for allowing the O.A. Hence O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
Member (A) Manish/-
??
??
??
??
8