Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Adesh Kumar Jain vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2013
RESERVED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1037 of 2010 Jabalpur, this Tuesday the 14th day of May , 2013 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HONBLE MR.G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Adesh Kumar Jain s/o late Shri Dhanna Lal Jain a/a yrs, Occ: Part Time Mali, Head Post Office, Division Vidisha, Postal Department, Vidisha (MP) R/o Lahanagi Mohall, Near Factory of Shri Pratap Bhanu Sharma, Vidisha (MP) 464001 - Applicant (By Advocate None ) V e r s u s 1. Union of India, Through the Asstt. Director General (Training) Ministry of Communication, Dept. of Posts Partiament Street, New Delhi 110011 2.The Chief Post Master General MP Circle, MP Nagar, Hoshangabad Road Bhopal 12 3.The Superintendent Head Post Office Postal Department, Vidisha 464001 -Respondents (By Advocate Shri S.K. Mishra) ORDER
By G.P.Singhal,AM.-
The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs in this OA:
i. Direct, the respondents to regularize the applicant on the Group D post from 27.09.1994.
ii. Direct the Respondents for considering the claim of regularization of the applicant with retrospective effect and grant him all the service benefits in terms salary, allowances etc. which a regular Group D employee is entitled for from his regularization.
iii. Direct the Respondents to grant arrears of salary which a regularized Group D employee is entitled for since its regularization; and / or iv. Grant any other order/ orders, relief/ reliefs which be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
2 The applicant submitted that he has been working as part-time Mali since 27.9.90, when he was appointed through Employment Exchange. However, even after 23 years of continuous service, he has not been regularized by the respondents. The applicant has claimed regularization on the following grounds:
i. The father of the applicant was serving the department of Posts as Post-man. When he died in harness, the applicant was minor and therefore could not claim for compassionate appointment. The department had assured him several times to consider his claim but still he has not been provided any appointment on compassionate grounds.
ii. As per letter dated 6.6.88, from Assistant Director General (Training), Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts (Annexure A-6), Casual Labourers are to be given preference in the matter of appointment on ED vacancies. It is provided in Para 4 of this letter that casual labourers whether full time or part time who are willing to be appointed to ED may be given preference in the matter of recruitment to ED posts provided they fulfill all the conditions and have put in minimum service of one year. Despite such clear instructions, the applicant has not been provided appointment on any ED posts till now. On appointment to ED posts, the applicant would have got preference in consideration for Group D posts.
3 The respondents in their reply submitted that on the death of his father, applicants mother gave written consent to give compassionate appointment to Shri Shivnarayan Jain, who is nephew of the deceased employee. Accordingly, Shri Shivnarayan Jain has been given compassionate appointment from 30.5.1981, at Khander B.O. (Ganjbasoda). Regarding claim of the applicant for regularization of his services, the respondents submitted that there is no provision to regularize the services of part time workers, who have not been given temporary status. As per the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, temporary status would be conferred on Casual Labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989, and who continue to be currently employed, and have rendered continuous service of at least one year. Since the applicant was engaged after 29.11.1989, as part time Mali in temporary capacity, he is not covered under the said scheme. Therefore, he has not been given temporary status. It has further been clarified vide Department of Personnel, Training ( in short DOPT) OM no.49014/2/93-Estt.(C ) dated 12.7.94, that the part time casual labourers cannot be given temporary status. Since the applicant has not been given temporary status, and does not come under the category of casual labourer, he cannot be given any preference for appointment on GDS posts. The provision of letter dated 6.6.88 (Annexure A-6), are not applicable to the applicant, as he has not been conferred temporary status, and he is not a casual labourer. Thus, he is not entitled for any preferential treatment in the appointment of ED vacancies.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed there with. We have also gone through the written submission filed by the applicant.
5 In this case, the applicant has claimed regularization of his services on two grounds. First, he has claimed compassionate appointment as his father, who was working as Postman in the department, died in harness. However, the respondents in their reply have clarified that on the basis of a consent letter given by the applicants mother, a nephew of the deceased employee was given compassionate appointment. Therefore applicant has now no claim in regard to compassionate appointment. The other ground, taken by the applicant, is that he has been working as Part time Casual Labour for the last 23 years, and therefore deserves preferential treatment for recruitment to ED posts, as per the provisions of letter dated 6.6.88 (Annexure A-6), as well as for regularization as Group D employee.
6 The respondents have submitted in their reply that, since the applicant joined as part time casual labourer after 29.11.1989, he was not entitled to get temporary status, according to the scheme issued by the department vide letter dated 12.4.1991 (Annexure R-3). The respondents further submitted that according to the clarification issued by DOPT letter dated 12.7.1994 (Annexure R-4), temporary status could not be granted to part time casual employee, which is the status of Applicant. Thus, according to the respondents, the applicant is not entitled for getting preferential treatment in the matter of recruitment to ED vacancies or GDS, as claimed by him. The applicant did not submit any rejoinder in rebuttal of this stand.
7 The learned counsel for the applicant, in his written submission, has submitted that the applicant deserves to be regularized in compliance of the law laid by Honble Supreme Court, in the matter of Secretary to State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & ors., AIR 2006 SC 1 806. The applicants contention is that his appointment to the post of Mali was regular as he was appointed through Employment Exchange, and he had gone through the selection process, including an interview. He further submitted that, as the Applicant has worked continuously for 10 years or more, without intervention of orders of Tribunals/ Courts, he deserves to be regularized. However, the fact remains that, the applicant was given employment as part time casual labourer. The applicant has nowhere claimed that the post of Part time mali held by him was a duly sanctioned post of regular establishment. The applicant was working on a part time temporary post, on which he was never given temporary status, as he was not covered by the scheme, issued by the department vide letter dated 12.4.91 (Annexure R-3). Thus, the applicant has failed to establish his entitlement for regularization on a Group D post.
8 In view of the aforesaid, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (Dhirendra Mishra) Administrative Member Judicial Member sk ??
??
??
??5