Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India & Ors vs Heera Lal on 7 August, 2012
1
DBCWP No.6757/2011
UOI & Ors. Vs. Heera Lal
9
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6757/2011
Union of India & Ors Vs Heera Lal
DATE OF ORDER: 7th August 2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II
Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the petitioners.
Mr. J.K. Kaushik, for the respondent.
<><><>
With the consent and at the request of learned counsel for the
parties we have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the material placed on record, we have formed an opinion that
fundamentally for the reason of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT'), while passing the impugned order
dated 13.05.2011 in Original Application ('OA') No.271/2010, having not
taken into consideration the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Secretary, Ministry of Communications & Ors. Vs. Sakkubai &
Anr: (1997) 11 SCC 224 and so also having not considered several
other aspects, the matter is required to be remanded for
reconsideration. In this view of the matter, it does not appear
necessary to dilate much on the facts of the case. Only a brief
reference to the background aspects would suffice.
The applicant (respondent herein), working as Gardner in the
office of Superintendent of Post Offices, Divisional Office,
Sriganganagar, filed the OA leading to this writ petition while claiming
the following reliefs:
"(i) That impugned order dt.15.9.2010 (Annexure-A-1),
passed by the 2nd respondent, ordering withdrawal of the
temporary status granted to him vide order dated 2.3.2009,
may be declared illegal and the same may be quashed. The
2
DBCWP No.6757/2011
UOI & Ors. Vs. Heera Lal
respondents may be directed to grant all the consequential
benefits including grant of temporary status from due date as
per the verdict of Full Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in case
of Smt Sakkubai (A/6), supra
(ii) That any other direction, or orders may be passed in
favour of the applicant which may be deemed just and
proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the
interest of justice.
(iii) That the costs of this application may be awarded."
The case of the applicant for grant of temporary status under the
scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularization) Scheme was essentially argued on the basis of the Full
Bench decision of Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in the
case of Smt. Sakkubai and Anr. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of
Communications, New Delhi & Ors : OA Nos.912 and 961 of 1992. The
CAT, relying on the said decision, found merit in the OA filed by the
present respondent and accordingly, accepted the same; and, while
setting aside the order for withdrawal of temporary status granted to
him, ordered restoration of such status. The CAT also imposed costs of
Rs.10,000/- on the respondent No.2 for the so-called unnecessary
harassment of the applicant.
It has been pointed out at the outset by the learned counsel for
the respondent that the decision in Smt. Sakkubai as rendered by the
Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad had, in
fact, been a matter of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and
was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision
reported in (1997) 11 SCC 224, while observing, inter alia, as under: -
"10. The Tribunal, in our view, was not right in coming to the
conclusion that the Scheme for conferring temporary status on full-
time casual labourers is also applicable to part-time casual labourers.
In view of the clarification which has been made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, we do not find it necessary to give any
further directions."
3
DBCWP No.6757/2011
UOI & Ors. Vs. Heera Lal
The learned counsel for the respondent though has not disputed
the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter but
submitted that in the fact situation of the present case, several other
grounds were taken in the OA, which have not been considered by the
CAT essentially for its reliance on the aforesaid decision in Smt.
Sakkubai but without noticing that the same had been over-ruled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In view of what has been noticed above, so far the impugned
order is concerned, the same being based on over-ruled decision,
cannot be approved and is required to be set aside. However, when
other aspects of the matter have neither been dilated upon nor
considered by the CAT, it appears in the fitness of things and in the
interest of justice that the OA as filed by the applicant-respondent (OA
No.271/2010) be restored for reconsideration by the CAT in accordance
with law.
Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the
extent indicated above. The impugned order dated 13.05.2011 is set
aside; and OA No.271/2010 is restored for reconsideration by the CAT.
The parties through their respective counsel shall stand at notice
to appear before the CAT in the aforesaid OA on 18.09.2012.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
cpgoyal/-
.
