Karnataka High Court
Thippamma W/O Lakkshmapna vs Government Of India on 26 March, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.115283 OF 2019 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
1 . THIPPAMMA
W/O LAKKSHMANA
AGE: 49 YEARS
R/O: 2ND WARD
ASI QTRS
KAMALAPURA PO.
2. SIDDAPPA
S/O BHARMAPPA
AGE: 56 YEARS
R/O: 17TH WARD
HALLIKERI
KAMALAPURA PO.
3. T.N.MURALI
S/O NARASIMHACHAR
AGE: 57 YEARS
R/O: 16TH WARD
HIREKERI
KAMALAPURA PO.
4. SHABEERA
W/O MABUSAB
AGE: 47 YEARS
R/O: 7TH WARD
2
HPC POST, HOSPET.
5. HANUMAKKA
D/O SUGALAPPA, ASI
AGE: 49 YEARS
R/O: QTRS, 2ND WARD
KAMALAPURA PO.
6. SMT. OBULAMMA
W/O VARADAPPA
AGE: 53 YEARS
R/O: 7TH WARD
HAMPI POWER HOUSE
HOSPET TALUK.
7. SMT. YASHODHA
W/O MANI
AGE: 54 YEARS
R/O: NEAR CHURCH, 6TH WARD
KAMALAPURA PO.
8. NARASIMHA PRASAD
S/O SUBBA RAJU
AGE: 52 YEARS
R/O: ASHOKSINGH HOUSE
11TH WARD
KAMALAPURA PO.
9. SMT. YANKAMMA
W/O NEGHA NAIK
AGE: 57 YEARS
R/O: 2ND WARD, RAMANAGAR
KAMALAPURA.
10 VALIYAMMA
W/O SIDDISAB
AGE: 59 YEARS
R/O: MULALRA ONI, 10TH WARD
3
KAMALAPURA.
11. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O NALLASWAMY
AGE: 50 YEARS
R/O: 6TH WARD
CHAPPARADAHALLI
KAMALAPURA.
12. ABID
D/O ABDUL GANI
AGE: 48 YEARS
R/O: 4TH WARD
BEHIND SANGAM TALKIES
KAMALAPURA.
13. SOMULAVVA
W/O RAMANAIK
AGE: 57 YEARS
R/O: 2ND WARD RAMANAGAR
KAMALAPURA.
14. SHARADA
W/O BASAVANAGOUDA
AGE: 52 YEARS
R/O: 1ST WARD, PRT CAMP
KAMALAPURA PO.
15. SAROJAMMA
W/O CHANNABASANNA
AGE: 57 YEARS
R/O: 6TH WARD,
CHAPPARADAHALLI
KAMALAPURA.
16. NARASAMMA
W/O MADANNA
AGE: 56 YEARS
4
R/O: 6TH WARD,
CHAPPARADAHALLI
KAMALAPURA.
17 NARAYANAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 53 YEARS
R/O: ASI QTRS, 2ND WARD
KAMALAPURA.
18 KHAJABANI
W/O HONNUR SAB
AGE: 47 YEARS
R/O: 4TH WARD, NEAR ANEBAVI
MASIDI
KAMALAPURA.
19 NAGAMMA
W/O NAGAPPA
AGE: 49 YEARS
R/O: 6TH WARD
NEAR HPC ROAD
KAMALAPURA PO.
20 SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SATTUSWAMY
AGE: 50 YEARS
R/O: LPPL QTRS, 7TH WARD
HPC POST, HOSPET.
21 HUCCHAMMA
D/O YALLAPPA
AGE: 52 YEARS
R/O: D.NO.90/90
NEW BUS STAND ARE 2ND WARD
KAMALAPURA PO.
22 NAGARATHNA
5
W/O PAMPAPATHI
AGE: 48 YEARS
R/O: 13TH WARD FORT AREA
KAMALAPURA PO.
23 PRAKASH
S/O SUNKAPPA
AGE: 56 YEARS
R/O: NETAJI NAGAR
HAMPI POWER CAMP
HOSPET.
24 SELVAM
S/O CHINNASWAMY
AGE: 59 YEARS
R/O: 7TH WARD,
HPC PO, HOSPET TALUK
BALLARI DISTRICT.
25 PARAVATHI
W/O SHIVAMURTHY
AGE: 47 YEARS
R/O: 6TH WARD,
CHAPPARADAHALLI
KAMALAPURA PO,
HOSPET.
26 MUNSWAMY
S/O CHELLAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS
R/O: NEAR KIRITA YELLAMMA
TEMPLE, 6TH WARD
KAMALAPURA.
27 RAMAKKA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS
R/O: 8TH WARD
NEAR GARIBAVI TEMPLE
6
KAMALAPURA PO.
28 HEMAVATHI
D/O ESHWARAPPA
AGE: 46 YEARS
R/O: 2ND WARD, ASI QTRS.
KAMALAPURA PO,
HOSPET.
29 NEELAMMA
D/O RAMANNA
AGE: 50 YEARS
R/O: 15TH WARD,
HIREKERI
KAMALAPURA PO.
30 RAJAMANI
S/O GOVINDARAJ
AGE: 49 YEARS
R/O: PRT CAMP
JAIBHIM NAGAR, 1ST WARD
KAMALAPURA PO.
31 BHEEMA
S/O YALLAPPA HALLIKERI
AGE: 49 YEARS
R/O: 17TH WARD
KAMALAPURA PO.
32 RAJIYA
W/O SHEIK HUSSAIN
AGE: 44 YEARS
R/O: 5TH WARD CURRENT OFFICE
KAMALAPURA PO.
33 BASAVARAJ
S/O MUPPALAPPA
AGE: 53 YEARS
R/O: CHURCH HPC ROAD
7
KAMALAPURA PO.
34 MAHABBI
W/O SHEIK HUSSAIN
AGE: 58 YEARS
R/O: 15TH WARD URDU SCHOOL
HPC ROAD
KAMALAPUR ROAD PO.
35 SARASAMMA
D/O SUBRAMANI
AGE: 59 YEARS
R/O: 1ST WARD HPC ROAD
PRT CAMP
KAMALAPURA PO.
36 NAGAMMA
W/O JAMBANNA
AGE: 59 YEARS
R/O: KAMALAPURA PO.
37 AMMEN PEER
S/O S.M.KHADRI
AGE: 53 YEARS
R/O: 6TH WARD, HPC ROAD
CHAPPARADAHALLI,
NEAR URDU SCHOOL
KAMALAPURA PO.
38 KHASIM BEE
D/O VALI SAB
AGE: 49 YEARS
R/O: NEW BUS STAND 2ND WARD
KAMALAPURA.
39 RAJESHWARI
D/O RAMASWAMY
AGE: 50 YEARS
R/O: 16TH WARD K.V.V.ROAD
8
NEAR BALAMURUGARE TEMPLE.
40 MANJUNATHA
S/O VEERABHARDAPPA
AGE: 53 YEARS
R/O: 11TH WARD, NEAR VEER
BAHADRA TEMPLE
KARANAM STAND
KAMALAPURA.
41 GANESHA
S/O GOPAL
AGE: 55 YEARS
R/O: 8TH WARD, H.NO.573
KAMALAPURA.
42 A.MABU
S/O KHASIM SAB
AGE: 50 YEARS
R/O: 4TH WARD
BEHIND SANGAM TALKIES
KAMALAPURA.
43 SARASWATHI
D/O NALLASWAMY
AGE: 48 YEARS
R/O: HPC ROAD, 1ST WARD
KAMALAPURA.
44 BASAPPA
S/O SANGAPPA
AGE: 55 YEARS
R/O: 11TH WARD
KUNTE AREA
KAMALAPURA.
45 BASAVARAJ
S/O LINGAPPA
AGE: 49 YEARS
9
R/O: 6TH WARD
KAMALAPURA PO.
46 HANUMANTHA
S/O GIRIYAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: 7TH WARD
HAMPI POWER CAMP PO,
HOSPET.
47 MALLESH
S/O RAMANNA
AGE: 51 YEARS
R/O: 15TH WARD
HIREKERI
KAMALAPURA PO.
48 MEHABOOB BASHA
S/O BASHA OEER
AGE: 51 YEARS
R/O: 4TH WARD
NEAR SANGAM TALKIES.
49 MOULA
S/O KHADER
AGE: 47 YEARS
R/O: 4TH WARD
ANEBAVI MASIDI AREA
KAMALAPURA.
50 A.R.NADAF
S/O NADAF
AGE: 54 YEARS
R/O: NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE
HUILGOL VILLAGE
GADAG TALUK AND DISTRICT.
51 NAGAVENI
D/O PAMPAPATHI
10
AGE: 45 YEARS
R/O: 13TH WARD
KAMALAPURA.
52 NARASIMHA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 44 YEARS
R/O: 3RD WARD
BEHIND SANGAM TALKIES
KAMALAPURA.
53 RANI
W/O KONDASWAMY
AGE: 48 YEARS
R/O: BEHIND CHURCH
7TH WARD, HPC, HOSPET.
54 RAVI
S/O KONDASWAMY
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: NAMBI NARAYAN TEMPLE
KAMALAPURA PO.
55 SHANKARAMMA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS
R/O: C/O ASHOK SANGH
HOAKRKAMALAPURA.
56 YALLAMMA
D/O NAGAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS
R/O: 4TH WARD
KAMALAPURA.
57 SATYANARAYANA
S/O SESHAPPA
AGE: 44 YEARS
11
R/O: BEHIND URDU SCHOOL
5TH WARD, KAMALAPURA.
58 AKBAR
S/O KHASIM SAB
AGE: 46 YEARS
R/O: 12TH WARD, FORT AREA
KAMALAPURA.
59 MARUTHI
S/O RAMARAO
AGE: 51 YEARS
R/O: JAIBHIM NAGAR
1ST WARD, KAMALAPURA.
60 BASAVA
S/O OBAYYA
AGE: 46 YEARS
R/O: 15TH WARD, HIREKERI
KAMALAPURA.
61 JOGAYYA
S/O MALLAYYA
AGE: 49 YEARS
R/O: 16TH WARD, BANDIKERI
KAMALAPURA.
62 THIMMAPPA
S/O GANGADHARAPPA
AGE: 52 YEARS
R/O: 7TH WARD
NETAJI NAGAR, HPC POST
HOSPET TALUK.
63 MADHVACHAR
S/O HANUMANTHACHAR
AGE: 54 YEARS
R/O: HARIHARESHWARA TEMPLE
12
HARIHAR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
BELLARY.
64 MABU
S/O KHASIM SAB
AGE: 49 YEARS
R/O: 2ND WARD
NEW BUS STAND AREA
KAMALAPURA.
65 NEELAGIRI SWAMY
S/O UDDANAPPA
AGE: 50 YEARS
R/O: 15TH WARD
KURUBARA ONI
KAMALAPURA.
66 KHADDAR VALI
S/O SHAMSUDDIN
AGE: 56 YEARS
R/O: 6TH WARD
HAMPI ROAD
NEAR MUTHU YELLA TEMPLE
HOSPET.
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
RESIDENTS OF HOSPET TALUK
BALLARI DISTRICT - 583 215.
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
'D' GROUP EMPLOYEES IN THE
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUNITA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
13
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CULTURE,
OFFICE OF THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT
ARCHAEOLOGIST
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
HAMPI MINI CIRCLE - 583 221.
REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ARCHAEOLOGIST.
2. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF CULCURE
OFFICE OF THE
SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
BANGALORE CIRCLE - 560 041.
REP. BY SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
JANPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR GENERAL.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUNDARESHAN, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA ALONG WITH SRI AVINASH M. ANGADI, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR A DIRECTION OR AN ORDER TO THE
REPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE
PETITIONERS AS AGREED AND ASSURED BY THE RESPONDENTS
TO THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF THE
14
YEAR 1993 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT
PETITION WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT.
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED AN IA
U/S.151 OF CPC., PRAYING TO, DISPENSE WITH THE PRODUCTION
OF TYPED COPIES OF ANNEXURES-A TO C & E, F, TO J, N P & Q,
FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 19.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners, 66 in number, are knocking at the doors of this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to regularize their services as agreed and assured by the respondents in accordance with the Scheme of the year 1993.
2. Heard Smt. Sunitha P. Kalasoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Sundershan, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioners claim to have begun to work with the 1st respondent / the Government of India, in the Department of 15 Culture, Archaeological Survey of India. It is the averment in the petition that in the year 1979, the petitioners were all appointed as casual labourers on daily wage basis. The reason for their appointment was to engage them in the on-going excavation work at Hampi Archaeological site, which is referred to as the Hampi Mini Circle. On commencement of the work by the petitioners, the 1st respondent draws up a list of employees who were appointed on daily wages as casual labourers; who have put in more than 240 days of service without interruption and the depiction was that, they would be entitled for consideration of regular recruitment or regularization of their services. The petitioners were disengaged in the year 1990 as the excavation project/work was coming to an end. This led the petitioners to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ('the Labour Court' for short) in C.R.No.70 of 1990, seeking several benefits as well as regularization of their services. During the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court, the 1st respondent on 26.03.1993 draws up a list, which is termed as seniority list of casual labourers working at Hampi Mini Circle depicting them to be entitled for regularization. The names of the petitioners also find a place in the 16 said list. The list was forwarded to the 3rd respondent who was the competent authority to accord any kind of benefit upon the petitioners. Pursuant to the said communication and the status of these petitioners as well as pending dispute before the Labour Court, the Government of India comes up with a Scheme known as 'Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training, Casual Labours, grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme' for short). The Scheme was to come into effect from 01-09-1993. The petitioners who were agitating before the Labour Court were asked to withdraw the petitions by accepting or giving willingness to come into the ambit of the Scheme for conferment of temporary status. In the meanwhile, the Labour Court passes an award disposing of the dispute between the parties therein in terms of its order dated 13-06-2001, by directing reinstatement of all the agitating employees/workmen with continuity of service but without back-wages. The 1st respondent challenged the said award before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.41445 of 2001 and connected matters, which comes to be allowed on 29.11.2007 and the matter is remitted back to the hands of the Labour Court for disposal 17 within 10 months. Talks between the 1st respondent and the Casual Labourers Union took place after the said remand and it was agreed upon that the petitioners would be conferred the benefit of temporary status. A report was directed to be prepared by appointment of a Committee as to the status of the petitioners and their entitlement for regularization. Two to three recommendations were made by the Deputy Superintendent of Archaeology to the 3rd respondent recommending cases of the petitioners for regularization. The petitioners were sought to be brought under the Scheme giving them temporary status. Since the matter had been remitted back to the Labour Court, the minutes of the meeting between the Union of Casual Labourers and the 1st respondent led to the workmen giving willingness before the Labour Court and withdrawal of all disputes that were pending before the Labour Court. A memo of willingness of each of the workman before the Labour Court was filed and recording the same, the dispute was closed as withdrawn.
4. No regularization comes about to the petitioners. On 26.02.2016, an Official Memorandum was issued by the 3rd 18 respondent regularizing certain casual labourers who were working in the Hampi Mini Circle and who were conferred temporary status considering the seniority list that was prepared in the year 1993. Communications between the respondents galore, the result of those communications is non-consideration of the case of the petitioners for regularization. In the meantime, the 1st respondent notifies process for direct recruitment of multi-task staff to be appointed in the Hampi Mini Circle. The action of the respondents in not considering the cases of the petitioners for regularization and the notification so issued by the 1st respondent for direct recruitment has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend with vehemence that the Department of Archaeology has practiced discrimination as few of the casual labourers had been regularized in the year 1999 according to a particular seniority list maintained by the 1st respondent. Insofar as it concerns cases of these petitioners, they were disengaged and they were out of the seniority list. Therefore, no benefit of regularization is granted to 19 these petitioners. After a long drawn battle, what the petitioners got is conferment of temporary status which places the petitioners neither here nor there as they got 1/10th of the benefits of every other employee got on regularization. The petitioners were asked to withdraw the dispute so that it would pave way for their regularization, which till to-day no such benefit is conferred upon these petitioners. Therefore, she would seek a mandamus to direct regularization of the services of the petitioners who are now aged 50 years or more.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the respondents had never assured any kind of regularization to these petitioners. They have been conferred temporary status and that is all that the Union of India could do with the services of these petitioners. He would admit that recommendations were made by the 1st respondent for regularizing the services of the petitioners but that would not mean that Government would take a decision on the recommendation. The guidelines or the Scheme that was brought out in the year 1993 clearly indicated that they would be 20 conferred temporary status but will not however, be brought on the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process. The regular selection process is now initiated in the year 2018, which is not for the purpose of dislodging the petitioners from their employment. At best they are entitled to temporary status conferred upon them and the benefits that they would get under the Scheme. The only assurance given to these petitioners was that, they would be getting temporary status and, therefore, the petitioners seeking a mandamus for regularization is necessarily to be dismissed. Merely because certain persons are regularized in the year 1990, it would not mean that the petitioners are similarly placed and they would be regularized. Those employees who were regularized were all employees of the Hampi Conservation Project which is an on-going project and not Hampi Excavation project which is a project for a particular number of years, which has long ceased. He would, in all, seek dismissal of the petition.
21
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged as casual labourers, a few from 1975 and a few from 1979. They were engaged by the 1st respondent for the Hampi National Project for excavation. This is discernible from the seniority list of casual labourers drawn by the 1st respondent on 31-03-1986. The names of all the petitioners found place in the said seniority list of casual labourers, which is appended to the petition. This is not in dispute. The petitioners were disengaged in the year 1990 as excavation work comes to an end. This leads the petitioners to prefer a dispute before the Labour Court in Central Reference No.70 of 1990. The dispute was pending. In the interregnum, the 3rd respondent notifies the aforesaid Scheme. The Scheme was to come into effect from 01-09-1993. The Scheme becomes relevant to be noticed and it reads as follows:
"Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. of Personnel and Training, Casual Labourers 22 (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme
1. This scheme shall be called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India. 1993
2. This Scheme will come into force w. e.f.1.9.1993
3. This scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministers Departments of Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices on the date of issue of these orders But it shall not be applicable to casual workers in Railways. Department of Telecommunication and Department of Posts who already have their own schemes.
4. Temporary Status
(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 to a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week)
(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Group 'D' pests
(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer would not involve any change is his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circle on the basis of availability of work.
(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not, however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group 'D' posts 23
5. Temporary status would entitle the casual labourers to the following benefits-
(i) Wages at daily rates with reference to the minimum of the pay scale for a corresponding regular Group 'D' official including DA, HRA and CCA
(ii) Benefits of increments at the same rate as applicable to o Group D' employee would be taken into account for calculating pro-rata wages for every one year of service subject to performance of duty for at least 240 days. 206 days in administrative offices observing 5 days week) in the year from the date of conferment of temporary status.
(iii) Leave entitlement will be on a pro rata basis at the rate of one day for every 10 days work casual or any other kind of leave, except maternity leave, will not be admissible. They will also be allowed to carry forward the leave of their credit on their regularisation. They will not be entitled to the benefits of encashment of leave on termination of service for any reason or on their quilting service.
(iv) Maternity leave to lady casual labourers as admissible to regular Group D employees will be allowed
(v) 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularisations
(vi) After rendering three years' continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on par with temporary Group 'D' employees for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group 'D' employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of their Department
(vii) Until they are regularized, they would be entitled to Productivity Linked Bonus/ Ad- hoc bonus only at the rates as applicable to casual labourers 24
6. No benefits other than those specified above will be admissible to casual labourers with temporary status However if any additional benefits are admissible to casual workers working in Industrial establishments in view of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, they shall continue to be admissible to such casual labourers.
7. Despite conferment of temporary status, the services of a casual labourer may be dispensed with by giving a notice of one month in writing A casual labourer with temporary status can also quit service by giving a written notice of one month The wages for the notice period will be payable only for the days on which such casual worker is engaged on work.
8. Procedure for filling up of Group 'D' posts
(i) Two out of every three vacancies in Group 'D' cadres in respective offices where the casual labourers have been working would be filled up as per extant recruitment rules and in accordance with the instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training from amongst casual workers with temporary status. However, regular Group 'D' staff rendered surplus for any reason will have prior claim for absorption against existing/future vacancies in case of illiterate casual labourers or those who fail to fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed for post, regularisation will be considered only against those posts in respect of which literacy or lack of minimum qualification will not be a requisite qualification. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they have worked continuously as casual labourer.
9. On regularisation of casual worker with temporary status, no substitute in his place will be appointed as he was not holding any post. Violation of this should be viewed very seriously and attention of the appropriate authorities should be drawn to such cases for suitable disciplinary action against the officers violating these instructions.
10. In future, the guidelines as contained in this Department's OM dated 7.6.88 should be followed strictly in the matter of engagement of casual employees in Central Government offices.25
11. Department of Personnel and Training will have the power to make amendments or relax any of the provisions in the scheme that may be considered necessary from time to time."
(Emphasis supplied) The Scheme was made applicable to Casual Labourers in the employment of respective Departments of the Government of India except Railways and Telecommunication. Clause-4 therein was confirmation of temporary status. The confirmation of temporary status would entitle casual labourers to certain benefits which would be DA, HRA and CCA and all other benefits that a permanent employee would get. Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 5 of the Scheme indicated that leave entitlement will be considered on their regularization and 50% of service rendered under temporary status would be accounted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularization. The procedure to fill up the post is also indicated at Clause 8. This is also indicative of the fact that Recruitment Rules being brought in and the Department recruiting casual workers with temporary status. Clause-9 thereof depicted that on regularization of a casual worker with temporary status, no substitute in his place would be appointed. All these would clearly 26 indicate the steps taken towards permanency of certain casual labourers. First, they should be appointed as casual labourers, continued to work as casual labourers, they be conferred temporary status and after conferment of temporary status, they would be brought into a post as permanent employee either by direct recruitment or seemly rendering right of regularization though not direct.
9. The dispute that was pending before the Labour Court was allowed by the Labour Court in terms of its award dated 30th May, 2001 and 13th June, 2001 in three different central references. The Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages. This was challenged by the 1st respondent before this Court in W.P.No.41446 of 2001 and connected cases. This Court after hearing the parties was of the opinion that the matter requires to be reconsidered as the order of the Labour Court was cryptic. The writ petitions were allowed by rendering the following direction:
"For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER 27
i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned award dated 30.5.2001 in C.R.No.71/90 and C.R.NO.75/90 and award dated 13.6.2001 in C.R.NO.70/90 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore are hereby quashed.
iii) The matters are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to both the parties as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than ten months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iv) Until termination of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the services of respondent workmen shall not be disturbed.
v) Both the parties are at liberty to lead additional evidence, if any.
vi) All questions are left open.
vii) Ordered accordingly."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Labour Court was directed to reconsider the dispute within 10 months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order and the services of the workmen were directed not to be disturbed. Liberty was reserved to lead additional evidence. Therefore, the petitioners continued in service but it was litigious. After the aforesaid order of this Court, a factual report was sought for by the 3rd respondent from the hands of the 1st respondent. A detailed narration of 28 genesis of employment of the petitioners and their status was communicated to the 3rd respondent. The communication becomes germane to be noticed and it reads as follows:
"As this Office is yet to receive communication of decision in the matter, I would like to once again furnish the brief facts about the Seniority list of C.Ls prepared by this Circle, for your kind information:
1) This Circle has prepared the combined Seniority List of Casual Labourers engaged in the Circle, as on 31/03/1986, which comprised of the names of all casual labourers who were being engaged continuously at that time, for both Conservation work as well as Hampi National Excavation Project work.
2) Basing on the above Seniority List, about 22 Casual Labourers (all of whom were engaged for HNP Excavation work, except one pertaining to Conservation) were regularized during the year 1987.
3) Subsequently, when the Hampi Excavation Project work was wound up in the year 1989, the names of the casual labourers engaged for the HNP excavation work, were deleted from the seniority list and the revised Seniority List of Casual Labourers was prepared as on 31/10/1989, excluding the names of all the casual labourers who were engaged for the HNP Excavation work. By that time, the Casual Labourers who were engaged under HNP Excavation work, had completed more than 240 days from the years from 1984 to Nov. 1989.
4) The Seniority List of C.Ls was subsequently revised/ updated from time to time on 26.03.1993, 02.06.1995 & 21.02.1997, by deleting the names 29 of the regularized C.Ls and also including the names of C.Ls Who were engaged subsequently for conservation work & fulfilling required conditions.
5) Subsequent to the year 2000, no C.Ls were regularized and the remaining C.Ls in the latest revised seniority list, who were not regularized, have been granted Temporary Status, as per DOPT'S OM No.51016/2/90-Estt © dated 10/09/1993 and they are still working as Temporary Status C.Ls.
It is apparent from the above, that consequent to the revision of the S.Ls from the year 1989, only C.Ls engaged for Conservation work were regularized as per their seniority in the SL. and none of the HNP Labourers who were disengaged from service w.e.f. 1989, could be regularized, as their names were deleted from the Seniority List prepared as on 31/3/1986. consequent upon their disengagement. Aggrieved by the action of the Department (ASI) the labourers of HNP have filed Court Case and so far the same has not yet been settled.
Since the disengagement of the HNP C.Ls in 1989, ie, after winding up of the HNP Project, they were again re-engaged in March 2004, as per the Memorandum of settlement entered with the Union, pending final decision in the cases pending in the Court. It is pertinent to mention here about the Court Cases filed by the C.L Union/ department in the Hon'ble Courts, brief of which is mentioned below:
Aggrieved by their abrupt disengagement from service, after continuously working as casual labourers for the years ranging from 1981 to 1989, the C.L Union raised disputes by way of C.R Nos. 70/90, 71/90 & 75/90 in the Hon'ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore which were decided in favour of the Labourers in the year 2001 after prolonged arguments. The Awards passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal were challenged by this department by way of 30 Writ Petitions in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The W.Ps were allowed by the Hon'ble High Court and Orders passed on 29.11.2007, quashing the Awards passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, and remanding the disputes to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore for fresh consideration. Even after lapse of two years, the Case referred by the High Court has not yet come up for hearing, as Judge has not been posted to the Labour Court. The disputes are yet to be decided afresh by the Hon'ble Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the C.Ls have been re- engaged as per Orders of the Hon'ble Court, pending final decision in the Cases.
In meanwhile, I would like to invite your kind attention to the decision taken in the Meeting held under the Chairmanship of ADG with members of the Hampi Labour Union in the Directorate's Office, New Delhi on 11th July 2008, wherein it was decided to review and re-examine the issues relating to the 1986 Seniority list and directions were also issued by the Chairman to examine whether the contention of the Union for restoring the 1986 seniority list is even tenable.
Subsequent to decision taken in the Meeting, this Office has been receiving several Representations from the C.L. Union, mainly with regard to fulfilling their demand of restoring the 1986 seniority list, reinstatement and regularization of their services or grant them Temporary Status.
In connection with the above demand of the C.L Union, it is informed that since the demand raised by the Hampi C.L. Union with regard to reinstatement/ regularization of services is very long pending and has not been settled till date, notwithstanding the pending Court cases, it is recommended that the above main grievance of the C.Ls may be considered favourably by maintaining status quo in the matter and restoring the original combined Seniority List prepared as on 31/3/1986, taking into account their continous engagement as C.Ls for excavation work from the years 1981 to 1989. If this is considered, the C.Ls may also be given continuity of service, for the purpose of 31 granting them benefit of Temporary Status from 1/9/93, as per DOPT's O.M No.51016/2/90-Estt © dated 10/9/93, as they would have been actually entitled to the same, had they not been removed from casual service and were continued with the other C.Ls in the Seniority list. As it is suggested that even though they were not engaged/worked from the year 1990 to 09/03/2004, the continuity of service may be given, only for the purpose of granting Temporary Status and consequential benefits, the backwages for the period may not be given.
Moreover, since all the C.Ls were engaged prior to 7.6.1988, they can be exempted from the requirement of Employment Exchange. rocedure for the grant of Temporary Status, as per DOPT'S OM No.49014/4/90-Est © dated 8/4/1991.
Further, considering the large number of vacancies in the post of Monument Attendant, in this Circle as on date, which have occurred due to retirements/ deaths, the acceptance of this demand of the C.L.s will benefit the Circle in the long run, as it will help in filling up the vacant posts.
Taking the above facts into consideration, I would request you to kindly accept this recommendation, and communicate your approval for restoring the combined seniority list of C.Ls prepared as on 31/03/1986, with the above conditions, at the earliest, so that further necessary action can be taken in the matter.
This is for your kind information and approval in the matter at the earliest please."
(Emphasis added) This was communicated by way of a covering letter. The covering letter also assumes certain significance as to what it contains and it reads as follows:
32
"The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India Janpath, NEW DELHI 110 011 Sub: Regularization of Casual Labours in Hampi Excavation - reg.
Sir, Please find enclosed herewith letter No.26/9/2010- Adm dt. 01.10.2010 of the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Bangalore Circle, which is self-explanatory for necessary action. Further, I wish to state that since the Casual Labourers were working right from 1984 up to 1993 and they were 115 in number could not be re-engaged as it becomes subjudice due to pending court cases. After a protracted proceedings of the court cases, now, they have agreed to withdraw the court cases subject to conferment of their regularization. Therefore, the request for the regularization of 115 Casual Labourers engaged in the Hampi National Project may please be considered favourably.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
1/10/10 REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SOUTH)"
The communication was that casual labourers working right from 1984 to 1993, who were 115 in number could not be re-engaged because of court cases. It further indicated that the workmen have agreed to withdraw Court cases subject to conferment of regularization and, therefore, it was recommended that their cases be considered for regularization. Another communication comes 33 about on 01-10-2010 from the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent. Here again, the narration becomes clear that they would be disengaged and later re-engaged. The decision in the meeting between the Union of workmen and the 1st respondent was captured in the said communication. The relevant paragraph of the said communication reads as follows:
"..........
Now, as per decision taken in the Meeting held in the O/o the Regional Director (S), ASI, Bangalore on 27/9/2010, it has been reaffirmed to submit the Request to the Directorate General, ASI, New Delhi for favourable consideration of the demands of the C.L Union, subject to furnishing of the Undertaking by the C.L Union, to the effect that they will withdraw the pending Court Cases, if their services are regularized, or they are conferred with Temporary Status.
It is therefore once again requested to consider the main demands of the C.Ls favourably, by restoring the original combined Seniority List of C.Ls prepared in 1986. The list containing the names of all the existing Casual Labourers who were engaged for the Hampi National Project work, is enclosed as Annexure I. As per the list, there are totally 115 C.Ls, which also contains the names of 51 C.Ls who figure in the combined Seniority List prepared in 1986, and had worked for the HNP even before 1984. The remaining 64 C.Ls, who were also disengaged, on winding up of the HNP, were however continued to be engaged subsequently either in Excavation, which was taken up by the Circle, on seasonal basis, or Conservation work, till 2004.
All the 115 C.Ls were later re-engaged continuously, from 10/3/2004, as per the Memorandum of Settlement arrived under Sec. 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 34 on 03.03.2004, between the Management of ASI and ASI Daily wages Employees Union, in the presence of the Asst. Labour Commissioner, © Bellary, and as per the Order dt:29-11-2007 of the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka, in WP No. 41445 of 2001 c/w WP Nos. 41446 of 2001 & 41447 of 2001, as per which, until termination of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the services of the respondent workmen shall not be disturbed.
Considering the above facts, it is recommended that the 115 C.Ls, as per list enclosed in Annexure I, and who are party to the Court Cases mentioned above, may be given continuity of service, (without back wages) by taking into account their engagement as C.Ls for excavation work from the years 1984 to 1989, and considering the fact that they would have been in continuous engagement, had they not been disengaged, due to winding up of the HNP and the subsequent Court Cases. If the continuity of service is granted to them, they may also be given the benefit of Temporary Status from 1/9/93, as per DOPT's O.M No. 51016/2/90-Estt © dated 10/9/93, and as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as per which one-time relaxation has to be given for conferment of the Temporary Status to such of those C.Ls who have been engaged upto 1993 and who fulfill the stipulated conditions and therefore the 115 C.Ls are entitled for Temporary Status and subsequent regularization. Further, since all the C.Ls were engaged prior to 7.6.1988, they can be exempted from the requirement of Employment Exchange procedure for the grant of Temporary Status, as per DOPT's O.M No.49014/4/90-Estt © dated 8/4/1991.
I would therefore request you to kindly communicate your decision in the matter at the earliest please.
Yours faithfully, Encl: As above.
Sd/-
Superintending Archaeologist"35
This results in a Committee being appointed by the 1st respondent on 05-02-2011 to draw up and recommend as to what is to be done in the case of these petitioners. The report of the Committee is as follows:
"REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE FORMED FOR FINALIZING THE LISTS OF CASUAL LABOURERS OF BANGALORE CIRCLE FOR CONSIDERING THE GRANT OF TEMPORARY STATUS AS PER DOPT'S O.M.NO.51016/2/90-Estt © DATED 10th SEPTEMBER 1993 AND O.M DATED 8.4.1991.
The members of the Committee formed for finalizing the lists of Casual Labourers for consideration of grant of Temporary Status, vide this Office Order No.26/8/2011-Adm- 821 dated 5.2.2011, met at the National Games Village, Koramangala from 11.2.2011 to 9.3.2011, to cross-check and verify the details contained in the draft list of Casual Labourers engaged at Kamalapuram during the period from 1984 to 1993, as prepared by ASI, Bangalore Circle. Apart from members of the Committee, the representatives of the Excavation Casual Labour Union, ASI, Kamalapuram were also present during the verification process.
The members of the Committee thoroughly cross-checked the details in the draft list prepared by the ASI, Bangalore Circle with all the available Muster Rolls, in the presence of the Representatives of the Casual Labour Union who also cross-checked the details. On verification of the details with the Muster Rolls, it was found that there were some minor discrepancies, which had to be suitably incorporated in the lists, for updating it.
Further it was found during the verification of the details, that some of the Muster Rolls, especially pertaining to the year 1988 and periods prior to 1988, were not readily available. Since they were very crucial for deciding on the grant of exemption from 36 sponsorship through Employment Exchange, and grant of Temporary Status, as per DOPT's O.M dated 8.4.1991, hectic efforts were made trace out the missing Muster Rolls, and all the missing Muster Rolls were traced at Hampi Museum, Kamalapuram in three Steel Boxes, which had got mixed up with Boxes containing antiquities retrieved from Excavations.
Immediately, necessary action was taken to incorporate the requisite data from the traced out muster Rolls, in the draft list of Casual Labourers. After the entries were made, the details were once again cross-checked by the Committee members in the presence of the Representatives of the C.L Union. After all the details were cross-checked, the discrepancies rectified and a consolidated statement was prepared. From the consolidated statement, two separate lists of the Casual Labourers as mentioned below, were prepared, for submitting the proposal to the Director General, ASI, New Delhi, for consideration of grant of Temporary Status, as per DOPT's O.M dated 8.4.1991 and O.M.No.51016/2/90-Estt © dated 10th September 1993.
1. Casual Labourers engaged prior to 7.6.1988 and who have completed 240 days as on 10.9.1993 in a year but have not been granted T.S, as per DOPT's O.M. dated 8.4.1991.
2. Casual Labourers engaged between 7.6.1988 to 10.9.1993 and have completed 240 days in a year as on 10.9.1993, but have not been granted T.S, as per DOPTS O.M.No.51016/2/90-Estt © dated 10.9.1993."
(Emphasis added) The Committee recommended that casual labourers engaged prior to 07-06-1988 but have not been granted temporary status should be granted temporary status. This was taken forward and a list of 37 casual labourers working in the Hampi Mini Circle was sought for. The list was communicated by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent. Here again, the names of the petitioners are found. But, the matter was still pending before the Labour Court as it was remitted back to the hands of the Labour Court by this Court. As per the terms of talks, though it did not fructify in deducing terms of settlement, the Union appears to have agreed to withdraw Court cases. Therefore, the Union filed a memo for withdrawal before the Labour Court. The memo for withdrawal is on the following pretext. The memo reads as follows:
"BETWEEN:
THE PRESIDENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES UNION, HAMPI, KAMALAPUR .....FIRST PARTY WORKMEN AND SUPERINTENDING ARCAEOLOGIST ARCAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ......SECOND PARTY MANAGEMENT MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL The Petitioner Union submits as follows:
The Petitioner union submits that as per the decision taken in the Meeting held with the representatives of the 38 Union in the O/o the Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Bangalore on 21/10/2011 and as per the Reply to the Interrogatories filed by the SA, ASI, Bangalore in C.R.No.70/90, before the Hon'ble CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Bangalore on 17/10/2011, a Resolution has been passed by the Union Government ...... the copy of the same is enclosed herewith before this Hon'ble Tribunal and as per which, the Petitioner Union has undertaken to adhere to the following conditions, as set out by the Department of Archaeological Survey of India, Bangalore Circle, in order to avail the benefit of Temporary Status to the eligible Casual Labourers of the Union, as per approval communicated by the Director General, ASI, New Delhi.
a) All the casual labourers, who are the Members of Archaeological Survey of India Daily Wage Employees Union (Excavation) and parties to the case No. 70/90 before the CGIT-cum-Labuor Court Bangaglore have given consent to withdraw the dispute before the Tribunal, for availing the benefit of grant of temporary status, to the eligible Casual Labourers of the Union, as per the undertaking given by them, during the meeting held in the 0/0 the RD(S),ASI, Bangalore on 27/9/2010.
b) As the decision has been communicated by Director General, ASI New Delhi for granting the Temporary Status with effect from date of order of issuing temporary status, the Casual Labourers of the Union will not raise any objections, with respect to the date of conferment of the Temporary Status.
c) As the Casual Labourers will lose their status as workers, consequent upon conferment of the Temporary Status, which will pave the way for regularization, in future, the casual labourers will sever all ties, from their Associations/Trade Union.
d) Consequent upon conferment of the Temporary Status, the Casual Labourers are willing to work at the Monuments, wherever required, by the Circle."(Sic) (Emphasis added) 39 In the memo it was indicated that casual labourers will lose their status as casual workers consequent upon temporary status, which will pave way for their regularization in future and the casual labourers will sever all ties with the trade Union. All these contents became contents of an office order dated 28-11-2011. It records that the workmen have agreed to withdraw the case before the Courts and adhere to all conditions stipulated therein. The benefits that the temporary employees would get are also depicted in the office order which read as follows:
".... .... ....
Consequent upon conferment of the Temporary Status, he/she is posted to Ashoka Siddapur under the Sr.Conservation Assistant/ Conservation Assistant Chitradurga, until further Orders.
Temporary Status granted to the above Casual Labourer, is subject to the following terms and conditions as per the guidelines contained in DOPT'S O.M. No.51016/2/90-Estt © dated 10.9.1993.
1. The conferment of Temporary Status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular group 'D' posts.
2. Conferment of Temporary Status on the casual labourer would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities. He may be deployed anywhere within the Circle on the basis of availability of work.
40
3. Such casual labourers who acquire Temporary Status will not however be brought on to the permanent establishment, unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group 'D' posts.
The Temporary Status would entitle the Casual labourer to the following benefits:
a) Wages at daily rates with reference to the minimum of Pay Band for a corresponding regular Group D Official, ie, IS-Rs.4440-7440 + Gr.Pay Rs. 1300, including DA, HRA and TA.
b) Benefits of Increments at the same rates as applicable to a Group D employee would be taken into account for calculating daily wages for every one year of service subject to performance of duty for atleast 240/206 days in the year from the date of conferment of Temporary Status.
c) Leave entitlement will be on pro-rata basis at the rate one day for every 10 days of work. Casual or any other kind of leave, except maternity leave, will not be admissible. They will also be allowed to carry forward the leave at their credit on their regularization. They will not be entitled to the benefits of encashment of leave on termination of service for any reason or on their quitting service.
d) Maternity leave to lady casual labourers as admissible to regular Group D employees will be allowed.
e) 50% of the service rendered under Temporary Status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularization.
f) After rendering three years continuous service after conferment of Temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on par with Temporary Group D employees for the purpose of grant of 41 Festival Advance on the same conditions as applicable to temporary Group D employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government Servants of their departments.
g) Until they are regularized, they would be entitled to Productivity linked Bonus/Ad-hoc bonus only at the rates as applicable to Casual labourers.
h) Despite conferment of temporary status, the services of a casual labourer may be dispensed with by giving a notice of one month in writing. A casual labourer with Temporary status can also quit service by giving a written notice of one month. The wages for the notice period will be payable only for the days on which such casual worker is engaged on work.
i) He is liable to be transferred anywhere within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Circle.
Sd/-
HEAD OF OFFICE & SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST"
(Emphasis added) It is indicative of the fact that they will also be allowed to carry forward their leave at their credit on regularization of their services and several other trites of regularization are also found in the office order. The Labour Court then rejects the reference case No. C.R.No.70/90 as withdrawn by the workmen Union by recording the following:42
".......Subsequently on behalf of the second party while further examining MW1 Shri K.C. Chacko 21 documents were got marked as Ex M5 to M25 and when the matter was at the stage of further evidence of the first party on 02.11.2011 the counsel representing the first party filed memo to the effect that in view of the assurance given by the second party management in the reply to the interrogatory that they are going to give temporary status to 98+2 workmen mentioned in the list annexed to the memo, the reference so far as those 98+2 workmen is not pressed and a submission was made that reference would be continued as far as remaining 22 workmen On that day on the submission made by the advocate representing the second party that he would file his reply to the said memo by 21.11.2011, matter was adjourned on 21.11.2011 and when the matter was called on 21.11.2011 the learned advocate representing the first party filed another memo signed by himself and the President of the first party union along with a copy of resolution passed by the first party union dated 20.11.11. In the memo filed on 21.11.2011 while referring to the contents of the resolution passed by the first party union dated 20.11.2011 it is requested to permit first party union to withdraw the entire dispute raised in this reference. In view of this memo filed by the President of the first party union the reference does not survive for consideration and has to be closed as withdrawn."
After withdrawal of the said case comes the Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2015 in which, it was indicated that in case of illiterate casual labourers with temporary status would fail to fulfill minimum qualification, regularization will be considered only after imparting requisite training. The communication insofar as it is germane reads as follows:
"........In case of illiterate casual laboures with temporary status, or those who fail to fulfill the 43 minimum qualification prescribed for the posts, regularization will be considered only after imparting the requisite training by the respective administrative departments in terms of MOF's O.M. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 24.12.2008. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they have worked continuously as casual labourers."
(Emphasis added) By another office memorandum dated 26-02-2016, while bringing in new pension scheme, it was indicated that casual labourers who had been granted temporary status under the Scheme and who have completed 3 years would be entitled to contribute to the GPF. The relevant clause reads as follows:
"6. The position has been reviewed in the light of the Court judgements in consultation with the Department of Expenditure. It has now been decided that the casual labourers who had been granted temporary status under the scheme, and have completed 3 years of continuous service after that, are entitled to contribute to the General Provident Fund."
10. With all these, there was no order that comes about regularizing the services of the petitioners. What comes about is only conferment of temporary status upon the petitioners under the Scheme and calling for applications to fill up posts of Multi-Task Office Staff by the process of direct recruitment. In the saga that is 44 narrated hereinabove, all these petitioners right from 1979 to 2019, when the writ petitions come to be filed, what would unmistakably emerge is that, they have been in continuous employment except for the period between their disengagement in the year 1990 till 2001; the Labour Court had allowed the dispute of these petitioners, directed their reinstatement with continuity of service which would clearly mean that there was no break in service. This Court allowed the challenge and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. While so doing, it was directed that the petitioners should not be terminated. Therefore, they continued to work and they continued to work till they withdrew the dispute on the fond hope that the withdrawal of the dispute would pave way for their regularization. In all, the petitioners have worked close to 20 to 25 years and few of them are aged 58 years. Therefore, the 1st respondent should now take a decision with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioners in terms of the Scheme supra, which in the past has been utilized to grant temporary status as if the petitioners are not conferred any permanent status or regularized like others who have been in terms of a particular 45 seniority list drawn in the year 1986, the petitioners would be left in the lurch with no benefits being conferred upon them.
11. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts of this case, will not enter into a positive mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioners as the aforesaid facts would clearly initiate that the employment of the petitioners was not without a break and was litigious. The only benefit that they would get is recommendations made by the respective unit heads on the ground that they had completed 240 days during their service when they were engaged. If the benefits to other employees are conferred who were similarly situated, the respondents cannot practice discrimination by leaving out these petitioners. Therefore, the respondents shall now take note of all the facts and the observations made in the case at hand and consider the cases of the petitioners for conferment of regularization or extend all the benefits that the petitioners would get as temporary employees so that in the evening of their service they are not left in the lurch.
46
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) A mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj/CT:SS