Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gagan Singh Alias Gugan S/O Sh. Risal ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 5 September, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ( reserved on 19.8.2013 ). O.A.NO. 88/HR/2012 Date of order:---- September 5, 2013. Coram: Honble Mr. Ranbir Singh, Member (A) Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J). Gagan Singh alias Gugan s/o Sh. Risal Singh, working as Multi Task Staff, Head Post Office, Jind ( Haryana ) presently resident of Quarter No.94, Employees Colony, Near Public Health Office, Jind. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. R.K.Sharma ) Versus 1.Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Information Technology & Departme4nt of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 2.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Karnal Division, Karnal-132 001. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Suresh Verma). O R D E R. Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J):
The applicant has filed the present O.A. praying for the following relief:-
Direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization of his services against any Group D post in view of the fact that he had been working as a Part Timer right from 23.08.11984 firstly as Part Time Chowkidar w.e.f. 23.08.1984 i.e. the date when he was employed and then as a Part Time Frash w.e.f. 30.09.1989 (A/N) without any break, thus, he has rendered almost 24 years of service, with effect from the date he is/was found eligible, vacancy was available, instead of w.e.f. September, 2010, with all consequential benefits.
2. Facts are to be noticed first. The applicant was appointed as Part-time Chowkidar on 23.8.1984 and later on his status was converted into Part-time Frash w.e.f. 1.10.1989. With a view to give temporary status and regularization to the casual labour, the respondents introduced a Scheme vide letter dated 12.4.1994 which was made applicable even to part-time casual labour and the casual labour becomes entitled to grant of temporary status after rendering 480 days service in a period of two years. To get the benefit of the said scheme, the applicant earlier approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.439/HR/2004 for regularization of his services and for grant of temporary status which was disposed of on 19.5.2004 by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant in terms of aforementioned scheme by treating the OA as representation. In pursuance of directions of the Tribunal, the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 6.8.2004 by saying that the applicant was not covered under the Scheme for grant of temporary status or regularization as he is a part-time employee. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 6.8.2004, the applicant again challenged the order dated 6.8.2004 before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.755/HR/2004 which was disposed of on 10.1.2008 by directing the respondents to consider the applicant for absorption against any Group D vacancy. The respondents again passed the order dated 16.5.2008 by rejecting the claim of the applicant that at present no vacancy was available for the purpose of making recruitment. The applicant has alleged that discriminatory treatment has been given to him as the respondents have appointed S/Shri Mehtab Singh and Tek Chand as Group D employees in the year 2005 whereas he had not been considered though he was eligible for absorption as Group D prior to 2005. The applicant again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.670/HR/2009 which was disposed of on 29.3.2010 by directing respondent no.2 to consider the case of the applicant for absorption against any Group `D post available if he is otherwise also found eligible. In pursuance of order dated 29.3.2010, the applicant was appointed on the post of Group D vide order dated 29/30.9.2010 (Annexure A-6) with immediate effect.
3. The applicant has further stated that after his appointment on a Group D post vide order dated 29/30.9.2010, his services was terminated vide order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure A-7). The applicant was again compelled to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1017/HR/2010. The Tribunal vide its order dated 18.2.2011 has quashed the termination order dated 22.11.2010 with further direction to the respondents to restore the status of the applicant as a regular employee in terms of 30.9.2010 with all consequential benefits. On the basis of order dated 18.2.2011, the applicant was allowed to continue his duties as Multi Task Staff. The applicant has alleged in the instant O.A that as per the information supplied under Right to Information Act, 2005, the vacancies of Group D earlier to 2008 were available, as such, he is entitled to be considered for regularization with effect from due date instead of September, 2010. Hence the present Original Application.
4. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing written statement. They have stated that the seniority list of part-time workers is not maintained because all part-time workers are contingent paid and they are not casual labourers. They have submitted that there were 153 vacancies of Group `D in Haryana Circle in 2008 including Karnal division having 21 vacancies. One vacancy of Group D cadre for the year 2003 was approved, but the same could not be filled up due to refusal by Shri Sampuran Singh on his promotion and the same post is still lying vacancy. They have further stated that the vacancies for the years 2006, 2007 & 2008 have not approved till date. They have thus prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder by generally reiterating the averments made in the O.A.
6. We have heard Shri R.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Suresh Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that the action of the respondents in regularizing the services of the applicant with effect from September, 2010 and not from an earlier date when the vacancies were available with the respondent department is totally illegal, arbitrary and thus, a direction may be given to the respondents to regularize his services from the date when the vacancy is available with the department in terms of the directions given by this Tribunal in earlier round of litigation. He further submitted that the respondents have themselves admitted in the written statement that one vacancy was available in the year 2003 with the department, therefore, the claim of the applicant may be considered against that vacancy.
8. Per contra, Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that after considering the relevant record, the services of the applicant has been regularized when the vacancy was available with the respondent department i.e. with effect from September, 2010.
9. We have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the pleadings.
10. Undisputedly in the earlier round of litigation, directions have been given to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for absorption against any group `D post available if he is otherwise found eligible. It is in that context the respondents had regularized the services of the applicant with effect from September, 2010. The fact of availability of vacancy prior to 2010 taken by the applicant in the O.A. has not been denied by the respondents that one vacancy is available in the year 2003 which they have admitted in para 4(x) of the written statement that one vacancy of Group `D for the year 2003 is still lying vacant. If that is so and the applicant fulfills the other eligibility condition, his services should be regularized from the date when the vacancy is available with the respondent department instead of September, 2010. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for regularization against Group `D post with effect from 2003 instead of September, 2010, against the vacancy available in the year 2003. We further direct that if the applicant is found entitled for regularization for the vacancy of the year 2003, the pay of the applicant be fixed notionally. The other benefits will be admissible to the applicant as per law. The above exercise be carried out by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. In the above terms, the O.A stands disposed of. No costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER (J). MEMBER (A) Dated:- September 5, 2013. Kks