Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Chandran K vs Space on 24 March, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Miscellaneous Application No. 180/00154/2025
in
Original Application No. 180/00689/2024
Monday, this the 24th day of March, 2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. V. Rama Mathew, Member (A)
1. Chandran K, Aged 56 years, S/o. Kunjan Nadar,
Gang Labourer, Staff Code No. LV 69902,
LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695547,
Residing at Kattuvetty Veedu, Perila,
Chullimanoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695541
2. Sajan D.L., Aged 53 years, S/o. Damodaran Nadar,
Gang Labourer, Staff Code No. LV 69912,
LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695547,
Residing at Amal Nivas, Mannarkonam,
Chullimanoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695541.
3. Ajikumar S, Aged 55 years, S/o. Sreedharan,
Gang Labourer, Staff Code No. LV 69900,
LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695547,
Residing at Mannarkonam Thadatharikathu Veedu,
Chullimanoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695541.
4. Sebastian M, Aged 56 years, S/o. Manian,
Gang Labourer, Staff Code No.LV 69913,
LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695547,
Residing at Sarun Bhavan, Vaikkekonam, Kizhakkumkara,
Panacode P.O, Uzhamalakkal,
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30'
2
Aryanad, Thiruvananthapuram - 695542.
5. Manikandan Pillai K, Aged 54 years, S/o. Krishna Pillai,
Gang Labourer, Staff Code No. LV 69907,
LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram -695547,
Residing at Arya Vihar, Valiyavila, 16th Stone,
Chullimanoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram -695541.
6. Sunil D, Aged 56 years, S/o. Damodaran Nadar,
Gang Labourer, Staff Code No.LV 69917,
LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695547,
Residing at Sunil Bhavan, Mannarkonam,
Chullimanoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695541.
7. Rajendran Pillai, Aged 54 years, S/o. Krishnan Pillai,
Gang Labourer, Staff Code No. LV 69910,
LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695547,
Residing at Thiruvathira, Rodarikathu Veedu,
Mannoorkonam, Chullimanoor P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695541.
8. Deepu V., Aged 53 years, S/o. Velukutty,
Gang Labourer, Staff Code No. LV 69903,
LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695547,
Residing at Nirmala Bhavan, 16th Stone, Chullimanoor P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695541. ..... Miscellaneous
Applicants
(By Advocates : Ms. Aruna A. and Ms. Uttara P.V.)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Space, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
` New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30'
3
North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Indian Space Research Organization,
Represented by its Chairman,
Antariksh Bhavan,
New BEL Road, Bangalore - 560094.
4. The Director,
Liquid Propulsion System Centre, Valiyamala,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695547.
5. The Controller,
Liquid Propulsion System Centre, Valiyamala,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695547.
6. Director (E),
Department of Personnel & Training Establishment C Section,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
7. Deputy Secretary, Department of Space, Antariksh Bhavan,
New BEL Road, Bangalore - 560094. ..... Miscellaneous
Respondents
(By Advocate : Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC)
This Miscellaneous Application having been heard on 12.03.2025,
the Tribunal on 24.03.2025 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicants herein are casual labourers engaged since 1988-1990 by the ISRO in their establishment at Valiyamala. While so, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 4 Training) issued "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993 for regularizing the employment of various casual labourers in the employment of Ministries and Departments of Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices. Claiming that they are entitled for the benefit of regularization, some of the employees engaged by ISRO in the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre, Mahendragiri, Tirunelveli District, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by filing OA No. 455 of 2009. The Original Application was disposed of with a direction to frame a scheme for the employees for the purpose of regularizing their services on a permanent nature. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, which, by Annexure A5 judgment confirmed the order. Though it was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 19200 of 2011, it was rejected.
2. Accordingly, the respondents issued Annexure A8 scheme for employment of Gang Labourers engaged for sporadic type of work in LPSC, Mahendragiri and Valiyamala under the Department of Space, known as the Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012. The scheme came into force with effect from 3.9.2012. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 5 Claiming that inspite of the repeated requests the claim of the applicants was not considered for regularization, they approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 115 of 2024. The Single Bench of this Tribunal by Annexure 11 order directed the 2nd respondent therein the Chairman, ISRO to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by them dated 4.3.2023 addressed to the 2nd respondent through a speaking order within the stipulated time. The representation was disposed of by Annexure A13 order of the 2nd respondent dated 18.4.2024 which is under challenge in this Original Application.
3. Along with the Original Application, the applicants have filed this Miscellaneous Application to declare that there is no delay in approaching this Tribunal or in the alternative to condone the delay of 3153 days and 3103 days in challenging Annexures A15 and A16.
4. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit disputing the various claims set up in the Original Application and contending that the Original Application is highly belated, that the delay has not been properly explained and hence, the applicants are not entitled for any relief, both in the Miscellaneous Application as well as in the OA.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 6
5. It is pertinent to note that the applicants are claiming benefits under Annexure A8 scheme for regularization of eligible casual labourers. By virtue of Annexure A8, which came into force on 3.9.2012, all Gang Labourers engaged in performing sporadic types of work in Valiyamala and Mahendragiri and had rendered continuous service of at least one year would be employed on temporary basis till they attain the age of 60 years. It was clarified that such employment on temporary basis would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular erstwhile Group- D posts. Clause 4(v) specifically provided that Gang Labourers who are employed on temporary basis shall not be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for erstwhile Group-D posts on preferential basis as per Department of Space/Government of India instructions on filling up of such posts issued from time to time. Clause 4(vi) specifically provided that there shall not be any age limit prescribed for employment on temporary basis as per the said scheme. However, for the purpose of subsequent regularization, if any, the conditions regarding age and educational qualifications prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Norms/Rules will apply. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 7
6. It emerges that pursuant to Annexure A8 scheme, by Annexure A9 series of orders dated October, 18, 2012, invoking provisions of the scheme, each of the applicant was issued with orders bringing them under the scheme as a Gang Labour with effect from the date of the scheme. The various terms and conditions based on which they were engaged were also prescribed in Annexure A9.
7. The grievance of the applicant is that inspite of them continuing as Gang Labourers, they have not been regularized inspite of their repeated requests and demands. Hence, they approached this Tribunal seeking a relief, which resulted in Annexure A11. Annexure A13 is the consequential order passed thereon by the 2nd respondent which is now under challenge in the present OA.
8. Annexure A13 specifically states that educational qualification for appointment in Group-D post was Xth class pass which was one of the eligibility criteria. Though the applicants have qualification of Xth clas,s it was stated therein that they have crossed the age of 50 years and the age criteria prescribed for direct recruitment of erstwhile group-D post was squarely applicable to the Gang Labourers. Evidently, since they have SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 8 crossed the age limit, they could not be regularized.
9. Annexure A13 incidentally, referred to earlier instances of attempt by the Department of Space to seek relaxation of provisions regarding age and the qualifications. The matter was taken up with DoP&T which by Annexures A15 and A16 orders issued in 2015, specifically answered that relaxation of upper age limit and educational qualification for regular appointment of Gang Labourers cannot be acceded to.
10. The precise contention of the applicants in the present MA is that Annexure A13 is the order challenged in the Original Application. The order is dated 18.4.2024 and consequently, the present Original Application is perfectly within the time limit. It was also contended that clarification sought by the Department of Space with DoP&T seeking relaxation of age/educational qualification for appointment of Gang Labourers in Group-D was declined by the DoP&T by Annexures A15 and A16 orders dated July 2015. It was contended that Annexures A15 and A16 documents are internal communications to which the applicants had no access. Those documents were not within their knowledge also. Hence, they have challenged Annexures A15 and A16 when the copies of SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 9 it was supplied to the applicants along with Annexure A13. These are challenged within the prescribed time, reckoned from the date of knowledge, it was contended.
11. It is pertinent to note that the applicants along with few other similarly situated persons have approached this Tribunal seeking regularization by filing OA No. 892 of 2009. It was disposed of by Annexure A3(a), directing the consideration of their claim for regularization. Evidently, that was not acceded to. Evidently, the applicants are claiming benefits under Annexure A8. Their claim for regularization under Annexure A8 arose in 2012 itself. In the OA itself they had a specific case that they have been requesting for regularization. Evidently, it was not acceded to. They remained silent for long period and approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 115 of 2024 which resulted in Annexure A11 order. Evidently, the applicants though claimed that they have been consistently making their request to the authorities which all were in vain, did not take any legal action for a long period of 12 years from 2012 onwards.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 10
12. This delay of 12 years is now sought to be explained by placing reliance on Annexures A13, A15 and A16. However, they have not explained this huge delay of 12 years. Absolutely no explanation is forthcoming as to why they remained silent from 2012 to 2024, though their similarly situated colleagues had initiated legal proceedings. Annexure A13 was pursuant to a direction of this Tribunal to consider their application.
13. The question whether a claim which is highly belated or has become stale can be revived, on the strength of a direction of the Tribunal to consider their grievance and whether the limitation would start from the date of original course of action or from the date of disposal of representations, pursuant to direction of Court/Tribunal was the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr. (AIR 2009 SC 264). Dealing with the question of directions it was held that the Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose applications without examining the matter on merits with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. The Supreme Court held that such directions proceed on the assumption that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Further the SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 11 Courts/Tribunals assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of representation does not involve any decision on rights and obligation of parties. It was held that if a representation is considered and accepted, the employee gets the relief which he would not have got on account of law of delay, all by reason of the direction to consider. If the representation is considered and rejected the employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action but by treating the rejection of the representation as the cause of action. The Supreme Court held that in such cases the bar of limitation may get obliterated if the delay is reckoned from the date of disposal of the Writ Petition or the order passed thereon. Accordingly, it held as follows:
"8. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of `acknowledgment of a jural relationship' to give rise to a fresh cause of action."
14. In the light of the above settled legal proposition, notwithstanding the order of this Tribunal to dispose of the representation by Annexure A11 order, the limitation cannot be reckoned from the consequential Annexure A13 order. The delay has to be reckoned from the date when SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 12 their original cause of action arose. Evidently, the cause of action arose due to their non-consideration of claim under Annexure A8 of the year 2012.
15. The situation was again sought to be salvaged by contending that they challenge Annexures A15 and A16, the orders enclosed along with Annexure A13. It was contended that Annexures A15 and A16, though of the year 2015, they were internal documents, the applicants had no access to it and it was brought to their knowledge only when the copies were forwarded along with Annexure A13.
16. A reference to Annexure A13 will clearly indicate that this contention is absolutely baseless. Annexure A13 discloses that their claim was independently declined on the ground that the age relaxation cannot be granted and that the limitations regarding age and educational qualification applies for the purpose of regularization. Incidentally it was observed that there was no scope for relaxation also. To supplement that, Annexures A15 and A16 were referred to as earlier instances of approaching DoP&T to relax the conditions. Evidently, those requests for relaxation were rejected. In the above circumstances, the claim of the SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 13 applicants was rejected independently, for the reasons stated in Annexure A13. Annexures A15 and A16 do not give rise to a cause of action since relaxation was not sought at the instance of the applicants.
17. Annexures A15 and A16 projects another fact. It shows that Gang Labourers employed in Valiyamala and Mahendragiri who were identically situated as that of the applicants herein and who were not regularized had sought for regularization and moved the Department which has sought opinion of the DoP&T. It was declined way back in 2015. Applicants throughout the period remained silent and has now approached after a long lapse of 12 years. They were not vigilant at least to this extent. Absolutely no reason is forthcoming explaining the delay.
18. Having considered the facts from this perspective, we are satisfied that the claim of the applicants is palpably belated and no relief can be extended to persons who are absolutely lethargic in moving the appropriate Courts/Tribunals seeking the relief. Though the learned counsel for the applicants relied on various decisions to supplement their case including the decisions in D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India [(2003) 6 SCC 186], Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30' 14 Regulatory Commission [(2010) 5 SCC 23], Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M.M. Rubber and Co., Tamil Nadu [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 471], K.V. Vijayan v. Jacob Job (2014 KER 50089) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding regularization in Jaggo v. Union of India (SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024), none of the above decisions would come to the benefit of the applicants as being totally misplaced in the facts of this case.
19. It is also to be noted that all the applicants have crossed 50 years. The request for relaxation has been consistently declined by DoP&T. Hence, even on merits, the applicants have no legally sustainable contention. Accordingly, we find no reason to condone the delay.
20. Miscellaneous Application No. 154 of 2025 is dismissed.
(V. RAMA MATHEW) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30'
15
Miscellaneous Application No. 180/00154/2025
in
Original Application No. 180/00689/2024
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure A 17- True copy of the communication no. A12012/1/2017-I dated 20.09.2024 with covering letter dated 20.09.2024.
MISCELLANEOUS RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Nil
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.03.24 15:29:41+05'30'