Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Bhuvaneswari vs M/O Urban Development on 26 June, 2025
1 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00770 and 771/2016
Dated this the 26th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
Part-time Sweeper,
O/o The Chief Engineer (SZ)I
CPWD, Rajaji Bhawan,
Chennai. .. Applicant in OA 770/2016
Mrs. R. Bhuvaneswari,
Part-time Sweeper,
O/o The Chief Engineer (SZ)I
CPWD, Rajaji Bhawan,
Chennai. .. Applicant in OA 771/2016
By Advocate Dr. P.S. Vijayakumar
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Urban Development
New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Central Public Works Department,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 2016
3. The Special Director General,
CPWD, Southern Region,
Rajaji Bhawan,
Chennai.
4. The Chief Engineer (SZ)I,
CPWD, Rajaji Bhawan,
Chennai.
5. The Executive Engineer (Civil)
Chennai Central Division V,
CPWD, Rajaji Bhawan,
Chennai. Respondents in both the OAs
By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran, SCGSC
3 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) An identical relief prayed for in these two applications which is founded on similar facts and circumstances, both these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The applicants are seeking the following relief:
"....... to direct the respondents to grant temporary status w.e.f.26.05.2009 at par with the applicants"
colleagues M/s. P. Kurma Rao, V.J. Prabhakar & M. Saraswathi, sweepers and also consequentially regularize the applicants' service with effect form 26.05.2009 as regular sweeper in CPWD with all attendant and consequential benefits w.e.f 26.05.2009 retrospective within a time frame and allow the OA with cost and to pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice"
3. The facts as stated by the applicants in a nutshell are as follows:
The Applicants belong to the Scheduled Caste category and were appointed as a Casual Part-Time Sweeper on 30.07.1993 through the District Employment Exchange, Chennai, under open selection. Since their appointment, they have been continuously working in the same capacity in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) for over 22 years, 4 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 2016 receiving consolidated pay through the Hand Receipt system. The Applicants further submit that the respondent department granted Temporary Status to their colleagues viz., M/s Kurma Rao, V.J. Prabhakar, and Smt M. Saraswathi with effect from 25.06.2009 under the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993," introduced by the DoPT OM No. 51016/2/90-Estt (C), dated 10.09.1993 which came into effective from 01.09.1993. However, the said benefit was denied to the Applicants solely on the grounds that they had joined on 30.07.1993. The grievance of the applicants is that, despite serving the department faithfully for over 22 years, they have neither been granted Temporary Status nor regularized, while similarly placed colleagues have been granted Temporary Status and subsequently regularized with effect from 026.05.2009. Hence, they constrained to approach this Tribunal by way of these Original Applications.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the applicants has been working continuously for over 22 years and have rendered more than 206 days of consecutive service in each calendar year, in a five-day week office, for many years. In light of this, the Applicants are entitled to regularization as upheld by various Courts and Tribunals. 5 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 2016
5. He further submitted that the Respondents ought to have appointed the Applicants on a regular basis as early as 1993, as vacancies were available at that time. Instead, the Respondents devised a dubious arrangement to evade their legal obligation to regularize their services. He contended that the Applicants, having been appointed through the District Employment Exchange, Chennai, under open selection, should at the very least have been granted Temporary Status, followed by regularization of their service. He further argued that the continued engagement of casual workers for years without granting them permanency constitutes an unfair labour practice.
6. Counsel also submitted that many years have now passed, and the Applicants have only a few years of service remaining. If the current situation persists, they will lose whatever limited opportunity they have left for regular appointment. Lastly, he emphasized that the Applicants are the sole breadwinner of their family and have devoted the better part of their working life in service to the Respondents. It is, therefore, unjust and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents to deny them a regular appointment.6 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 2016
7. Learned counsel relied on the judgment, dated 20.12.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs Union of India as well as the judgment, dated 27.11.2024 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Kamalammal Vs The Principal, Motilal Fomra Sanatana Dharma Higher Secondary School (WP No.19521 of 2018), in support of his contentions and prayed for the relief sought in these applications.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents contended that employees engaged on daily wages in the concerned department, having accepted the terms of such employment and the wages offered, cannot claim discrimination vis-à-vis those who have been regularly recruited in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. He further submitted that employment on daily wages does not confer any legal right to seek parity with regularly appointed employees, nor does it create an entitlement to permanent absorption, even assuming that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" could, in some cases, be invoked. There exists no fundamental right for employees engaged on a daily wage or contractual basis to claim regularization or absorption into permanent service.
9. He further argued that while individuals employed on daily wages may claim equal treatment among similarly placed daily wage workers, 7 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 2016 such a claim cannot be extended to seek equal treatment with regularly appointed employees, as that would amount to treating unequals as equalscontrary to the principles of equality enshrined in law. Further, he referred to DoPT Office Memorandum No. 49014/2/2014, dated 26.02.2016, which stipulates that the scheme for the grant of Temporary Status to casual workers is applicable only to those who have rendered at least one year of continuous service in a Central Government office interpreted as a minimum of 240 days (or 206 days in the case of offices functioning five days a week) in a calendar year. In the present case, the Applicants were engaged as a part-time sweeper for only four hours per day and, therefore, does not fulfill the conditions prescribed for grant of Temporary Status. Consequently, they were not granted such status and hence they are not eligible for regularization. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the Original Applications.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record..
11. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute regarding the admitted facts of the case. The reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble 8 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 2016 Madras High Court in Kamalammal's case is misplaced, as that decision pertains to the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, which are not applicable in the present matter. The Applicant is employed under the Central Public Works Department, and therefore, governed by Central Government service rules. For clarity and better understanding, paragraph 12 of the said judgment is reproduced below.
"12. In view of the fact that the petitioner worked as part-time sweeper, with the 1st respondent school to do sanitary work, which is a permanent in nature and come within 86 categories of post included in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, and the petitioner has completed more than 35 years of service, the judgment of the full Bench is squarely applicable to the facts of the petitioners case and as such the petitioner is entitled for regularization with effect from 01.04.1982"
12. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the Applicants is not applicable to the present case, as the Applicants herein were never granted Temporary Status and were engaged only as part-time Sweepers. In contrast, the petitioners in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already been conferred Temporary Status, thereby placing them on a distinctly different footing.
9 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 201613. We find the similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Ilmo Devi (reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 864), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment, dated 07.10.2021 held that part time employees who were not even given Temporary status cannot be regularized. We extract the relevant portion of the judgment hereunder:
"8.6 In the case of Daya Lal & Ors. (supra) in paragraph 12, it is observed and held as under:-
"12. We may at the outset refer to the following well- settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts.
The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
Xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.
10 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 2016(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees.
Xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx 8.8 Applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, more particularly, directions in paragraphs 22 and 23 are unsustainable and beyond the power of the judicial review of the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.,Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the Union of India/Department subsequently came out with a regularization policy dated 30.06.2014, which is absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), which does not apply to the part-time workers who do not work on the sanctioned post. As per the settled preposition of law, the regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy. Therefore, in absence of any sanctioned post and considering the fact that the respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-time Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not entitled for the benefit of regularization under the regularization policy dated 30.06.2014.
8.9 Though, we are of the opinion that even the direction contained in paragraph 23 for granting minimum basic pay of Group 'D' posts from a particular date to those, who have completed 20 years of part-time daily wage service also is unsustainable as the part-time wagers, who are working for four to five hours a day and cannot claim the parity with other Group 'D' posts. However, in view of the order passed by this Court dated 22.07.2016 while issuing notice in the present appeals, we are not quashing and setting aside the directions contained in paragraph 23 in the impugned judgment and order so far as the respondents' employees are concerned."
11 OA No.310/00770 and 771/ 201614. Applying the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the Applicant is merely a part-time employee and has not even been granted Temporary Status. As such, the factual matrix of the Applicants case is clearly distinguishable.
15. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Applicants have not established a case for the relief sought and have failed to substantiate their claim. Accordingly, both the Original Applications are dismissed as being devoid of merits. In the circumstancs, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
26.06.2025
mas