Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Laxmi Yadav Deceased Represented ... vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 25 October, 2024
(Reserved on 29.07.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.1546/2015
This the 25th Day of October, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Laxmi Yadav son of Shri Kalsa Yadav, Resident of Village Pipari, Post
aghagada, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur (Deceased)
Represented through LRs.
1. Smt. Sirtaji wife of late Laxmi Yadav.
2. Birandra Yadav son of late Laxmi Yadav.
3. Surendra Yadav son of late Laxmi Yadav.
4. Pavindra Yadav son of late Laxmi Yadav.
5. Dharmendra Yadav son of late Laxmi Yadav.
6. Poonam Yadav daughter of late Laxmi Yadav.
7. Soni Yadav daughter of late Laxmi Yadav.
All Residents of Village Pipari, Post Baghagada, Police Station Belipar,
District Gorakhpur
...........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General Doordarshan Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan
Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Director (Administration), Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan
Mahanideshalaya, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New
Delhi.
4. Station Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Gorakhpur.
.............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Shukla
ORDER
Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents
2. The applicant Laxmi Yadav (since deceased) represented by his legal heirs has filed the instant Original Application under Section 19 SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.2 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant dated 09.09.2011, 24.12.2014 and 02.03.2015 for regulariging his services under the regularization scheme.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was initially engaged as a Class-IV employee on a casual basis at Doordarshan Kendra, Gorakhpur and worked intermittently from 28.02.1992 until 1998. His services were abruptly stopped based on oral orders from the Director of Doordarshan Kendra. Since 2009, the applicant has been continuously submitting representations before the respondents requesting therein for regularization of his services and also for granting temporary status claiming similarity in OA No.1696/1997 and OA No.635/1997 (Jitendra Prasad and others v. Union of India). In 2011, the applicant again submitted representation, followed by two reminders, which were made in 2014 and 2015 for the same relief but the respondent authorities have taken no action. Hence, the applicant has filed the instant Original Application.
4. Since there is a delay in filing this Original Application, the applicant has also filed a Misce. Application (MA No.4102/2015) for condonation of delay stating due to his poor financial condition, the applicants could not approach the Tribunal earlier.
5. The respondents represented by Shri Vinod Kumar Shukla, filed counter affidavit on 16.12.2021 and submitted that Laxmi Yadav was engaged as a daily wage worker at Doordarshan Kendra, Gorakhpur, on a daily basis for a limited period. The respondents' counsel further submitted that according to their records, late Laxmi Yadav (the original applicant) had worked in the respondents' Office w.e.f. 16.03.1992 to 31.03.199 (17 days), from 01.06.1992 to 11.06.1992 (11 days) from 01.07.1992 to 14.07.1992 (14 days), from 115.07.1992 to 31.07.1992 (16 days). Thereafter, the services of the applicant were discontinued w.e.f. August, 1992 by order passed by the then Station Director (Head Office) and as per records available in the office, the applicant had SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.3 served the Department only for 48 days. The counsel submitted that the applicant's employment was neither continuous nor substantial enough to qualify him for regularization or temporary status under the relevant rules and circulars including the OM dated 10.09.1993.
6. It is also stated submitted by the respondents' counsel that since the services of late Laxmi Yadav (original applicant) were discontinued in August 1992, the applicants approached the Tribunal with an excessive and unexplained delay and for the said delay there is no convincing reason has been provided and as such the case should be dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay alone.
7. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicants to contest the facts raised by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, in spite of several opporutniged granted by this Tribubnal.
8. The applicants' counsel, Shri Ashish Srivastava, submits that late Laxmi Yadav was employed as a casual worker at Doordarshan Kendra, Gorakhpur from 28.02.1992 until his termination in 1998 without any formal explanation. Learned counsel submits that late Laxmi Yadav (the original applicant) was entitled to the benefit of the Scheme known as "Casual Laborers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993" which grants temporary status to casual laborers, who had completed 240 days of service in a year. Since, the applicant has worked as a casual laborer from 28.02.1992 to 1998, therefore, he should have been granted temporary status once he completed the requisite 240 days of service within a year, as provided under the scheme.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents have filed to consider the Laxmi Yadav's (since deceased) repeated representations since 2009 violate natural justice. Further, similar cases, such as in Original Application Nos. 1696/1997 and 635/1997 (Jitendra Prasad and others v. Union of India), were decided in favor of casual workers, granting them temporary status. Therefore, SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.4 late Laxmi Yadav (original applicant) is entitled to be granted the same benefit.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Laxmi Yadav (since deceased) was employed as a casual laborer on a daily wage basis and only worked 48 days between March and July 1992 and after that, there was no further engagement. The counsel further submits that the applicant's intermittent and short-term employment does not meet the criteria for temporary status or regularization under the "Casual Laborers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993," as mentioned in the OM dated 10.09.1993, which requires 240 days of continuous service. Further, Laxmi Yadav's service was already discontinued long before the issuance of the OM and thus, he is ineligible for any benefits under the scheme. Furthermore, the applicants have filed the Original Application after an unreasonable and unexplained delay, and as such, the case should be dismissed on this ground alone.
11. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
12. It is apparent from the record that the applicant Laxmi Yadav (since deceased) was employed as a casual laborer at the Doordarshan Kendra, Gorakhpur on an intermittent basis for a brief period between March 1992 and July 1992, amounting to a total of 48 days of service. The claim of the applicant for regularization or grant of temporary status under the "Casual Laborers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993" cannot be accepted, as the applicant did not meet the requisite criteria of completing 240 days of continuous service in a year, which is essential under the said scheme.
13. Furthermore, the applicant's engagement was discontinued long before the issuance of the scheme and no substantial evidence has been presented to prove that the applicant's intermittent and short-term SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.5 employment qualifies him for the benefits under the scheme. Additionally, the Original Application filed by the applicant was delayed and no convincing reason has been provided for the delay in approaching the Tribunal. The MA No.4102/2015 seeking condonation of delay also fails to establish a valid justification for such an inordinate delay in filing the Original Application.
14. In the case of Union of India v/s Mohan Pal, AIR 2002 SC 2001, the Apex Court held that the Scheme known as "Casual Laborers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993" by which the temporary status can be granted when concurrently the twin conditions are met: (a) the casual laborer should have been on the rolls as of 10-09-1993, and (b) they should have completed 240/206 days in a year. This scheme has been held as a one-time measure, not to be extended further. The Hon'ble Apex Court stated as follows:-
"The first question is to be decided on the basis of the interpretation of clause 4 of the aforesaid Scheme. As already noticed, the Scheme came into effect from 1-9-1993. Clause 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows:
"temporary status.--(1) '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)."
15. Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of "temporary" status is to be given to the casual laborers, who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. To acquire "temporary" status, the casual laborer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and should have also rendered continuous service of at least one year, meaning engagement for at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in the case of offices observing a five-day week. From Clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.6 purpose of giving "temporary" status to all casual workers as and when they complete one year's continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual laborers are to be given "temporary" status and later absorbed in Group 'D' posts.
16. The above decision was followed in the case of Director General, Doordarshan v/s Manas Dey (2005) 13 SCC 437 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
".... the department had circulated by OM No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10-9-1993 a scheme for grant of temporary status and regularisation of casual workers. The Scheme is called the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993. The said Scheme came into force with effect from 1-9-1993. The Scheme envisaged grant of temporary status to casual labourers who had worked at least 240 days in a year (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days a week).
9. Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of temporary status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. The Tribunal has taken the view that this is an ongoing scheme and as and when casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get temporary status. We do not think that clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing scheme. In order to acquire temporary status, the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered a continuous service of at least one year which means that he should have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices observing five-day a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving temporary status to all the casual workers, as and when they complete one year's continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given temporary status and later they are to be absorbed in Group D posts."
17. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or adhoc employee appointed/ recruited and continued for long in SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.7 public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment. The Court further held that the court should not issue direction for the regularization of service of such employees.
18. Based on the foregoing analysis, the applicants' claims do not have a sufficient legal basis. The applicable guidelines, statutory rules and judicial precedents have been duly considered and it is clear that the applicants did not meet the conditions stipulated in the relevant schemes and guidelines for acquiring "temporary" status. The criteria, as clarified in Clause 4 of the Scheme, require that casual laborers be in employment on the date of commencement of the Scheme and have rendered a continuous service of at least one year. The continuous service should be 240 days in a year or 206 days for offices observing a five-day week. The applicants did not fulfill these conditions. Further, the preparation of the seniority list by the respondents adhered to the guidelines, considering the total number of days worked by each casual laborer rather than the initial date of engagement. The approach taken by the respondents is consistent with the requirements and does not warrant interference.
19. In light of the above, this Tribunal finds no merit in the applicant's case for regularization or grant of temporary status. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay is rejected. Resultantly, the Original Application is also dismissed for being devoid of merit.
20. No order as to costs.
21. All pending M.As (Miscellaneous Applications), if any, are considered disposed of. The registry will take the necessary steps to remove the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA