Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K Veeraju vs M/O Defence on 22 April, 2024
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 505/2014
with
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 503/2014
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 312/2014
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 504/2014
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1144/2014
HYDERABAD, this the 22nd day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 505/2014:
1. A Ramakrishna, S/o Appa Rao, aged 45 years,
R/o. D.No. 14-21-76, Sanjeevi Colony,
BC Road, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-26.
2. Bara Srinu, S/o Appala Naidu, aged 39 years,
R/o. D.No. 37-14-20, Manikyamba Colony,
Industrial Estate Post, Visakhapatnam-07.
3 Sarvasuddi Appala Raju, S/o Appa Rao aged 45 years,
R/o. D.No.1-6-20, Akki Reddypalem, BHVP (Post),
Visakhapatnam-12.
4. R.V.N Satyanarayana, S/o Nooka Raju, aged 38 years,
R/o D.No. 3-49, Poosarla Street,
Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam-11.
5. Simma Venkata Rao, S/o Simma Appa Rao, age 37 years,
R/o. D.No. 6-6/1, Ashok Park,
Kancheripalem, Visakhapatnam-27.
6. Chukka Narasinga Rao, S/o Ramu, aged 35 years,
R/o. D.No. 1-40, Baji Junction, Reddy Street,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam-27.
7. Dirgumarthi Prasada Rao, S/o Appa Rao aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No. 38-4-50, Maharani Veedi,
Marripalem, Visakhapatnam - 08.
8. Yamanchili Kanakeswara Rao, S/o Durga Rao, aged 37 years,
R/o. D.No. 5-7-5, Gokulnagar,
Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam -08.
9. C.H.R.S Srinivas, S/o Appa Rao, aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No. 1-51, Baji Junction, Reddy Street,
Gopalapatnamm, Visakhapatnam-27.
Page 1 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
10. Kari Ramu, S/o Musslaiah, aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No. 36-53-22, Kotaveedi,
Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-08.
11. V.V.S Kumar, S/o Ramana, aged 36 years,
R/o. D.No. 19-15-03, Chandra Nagar,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam - 27.
12. Nambaru Ramana, S/o Joji, aged 40 years,
R/o. D.No. 1-12, Gollapalem Village,
Viyampeta Post, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagram Dist.
13. N.Appala Raju, S/o Surya Chandra Rao, aged 40 years,
R/o. D.No. 1-14/1, Varalaxminagar, Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam -47.
14. Angati Appalaraju, S/o Appa Rao, aged 41 years,
R/o. D. No. 58-31-13/1, Sakethapuram, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-09.
15. Damarasingi Anjaneyulu, S/o Nagayya R/o aged 37 years,
R/o. D.No. 1-185, Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam - 47.
16. D.Pardesi, S/o Paradesi, aged 43 years,
R/o D.No. 10-132, Chinnamushidivada,
P.F Colony, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam.
17. Pala Laxmana Kumar, S/o Surya Rao, aged 42 years,
R/o. D. No. 13-15-22, Dibbapalem,
Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam - 02.
18. P. Sudhakar, S/o Satyanarayana, aged 37 years,
R/o. D.No. 33-2-23/A, Karanala Veedhi,
Allipuram, Visakhapatnam-04.
... Applicants in OA/505/2014.
(By Advocate: Mr. M A Rao)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep by its Under Secretary to Govt of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension,
(Department of Personnel and Training),
New Delhi 110 001. Represented by its Director.
3. Directorate of Civilian Personnel,
Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Integrated Headquarters,
D-II, Wing Sena Bhawan New Delhi -110 011.
4. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam - 530 014.
Page 2 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
5. The General Manager,
Naval, Armament Depot,
NAD Post Visakhapatnam - 530009.
6. The Base Victualling Officer,
Base Victualling Yard,
NAD Naval Base (Post),
Visakhapatnam-530 009.
7. Chief of the Naval Staff,
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy).
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
... Respondents in OA/505/2014.
(By Advocate: Mrs. K Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 503/2014:
1. Budidha Srinu, S/o. Sri Ramulu Aged 40 years,
R/o. D no. 38-31-94, Sriharsha Nagar,
Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-18.
2. Killani Srinivas, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years,
R/o. D. No. 38-96-72/1, Siva Nagar,
Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-18.
3. C.H Kanaka Raju, S/o. Simhachalam Aged 40 years,
R/o. D.No.16-114, Old Gopalapatnam,
Chettibalaji Veedhi, Visakhapatnam - 27.
4. G. Siva, S/o Somaraju Aged 37 years,
R/o D.No. 15-96, Laxminagar, "F" Block,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam-27.
5. Abdul Moheed, S/o. Shaik Fareed, Aged 41 years,
R/o. D.No.24-27-58/1, Rama Cowal. Old Post Office,
Kotha Veedi Visakhapatnam - 18.
6. Karanam Srinivasa Rao,, S/o. Mahalaxmi, Age 43 years,
R/o. D.No 5-53, Srinubabanagar,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam-27.
7. Pydada Srinu, S/o. Pydiraju, Aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No. 55-3-75, Nehru Nagar,
Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam.
8. N Prakasa Rao, S/o Pakeer, Aged 44 years,
R/o. D. No. 56-26-1, Golla Kanchara Palem,
Near Netaji Club, Bangarayya Street,
Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.
Page 3 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
9. Tumpala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Demudu, Aged 35 years,
R/o. D.No. 19-62, Chandranagar,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam-27.
10. Kandipilli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Tatarao, Aged 37 years,
R/o. D. No. 33-36-50, Ramana Colony,
Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.
11. P Balakrishna, S/o. Pyditalli, Aged 48 years,
R/o. D.No. 5-60, Laxmipuram,
Chintala Agraharam, Viva Vepaguta, Visakhapatnam-47.
12. Kalivarapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Krishna,
Aged 39 years, R/o. D.No. 58-12-177,
Durgapuram NAD Post, Visakhapatnam - 09.
... Applicants in OA/503/2014.
(By Advocate: Mr. B Gurudas)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep by its Under Secretary to Govt of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension,
(Department of Personnel and Training),
New Delhi 110 001. Represented by its Director.
3. Directorate of Civilian Personnel,
Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Integrated Headquarters,
D-II, Wing Sena Bhawan New Delhi -110 011.
4. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam - 530 014.
5. The General Manager,
Naval, Armament Depot,
NAD Post Visakhapatnam - 530009.
6. The Base Victualling Officer,
Base Victualling Yard,
NAD Naval Base (Post),
Visakhapatnam-530 009.
7. Chief of the Naval Staff,
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy).
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
... Respondents in OA/503/2014.
(By Advocate: Mrs. K Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG)
Page 4 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 312/2014:
1. Rapeti Venkata Rao, S/o. Challa Rao, Aged 36 years,
R/o. Qr.No.57/11, Ashoknagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam 08.
2. Beri Appa Rao, S/o. Narasinga Rao, Aged 41 years,
R/o. D.No. 58-11-94, Old Karasa, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam.
3. Paithani Appalaraju, S/o Pydetalli, Aged 46 years,
R/o. D.No. 37-2-43, Old ITI Junction, Visakhapatnam.
4. S Satyanarayana, S/o Appa Rao, Aged 36 years,
R/o D.No. 32-32-280, SVP Nagar, Kobbarithota, Visakhapatnam.
5. Karri Venkata Rao, S/o. Gangayya, 44 years old,
R/o.D.No.38-23-73, R&B Office, NH-5 Road,
Sriramnagar Colony, Marripalem Post, Visakhapatnam - 508 018.
6. Lanka Anand, S/o Rambabu, Aged 41 years,
R/o D.No. 38-4-62/1, Maharani Stree
Marripalem Post, Visakhapatnam - 508 018.
7. Md. Yaseen, S/o S.K Mohammed, Aged 43 years,
R/o. D.No. 38-1-26/1, Muslim Street,
Marripalem Post, Visakhapatnam- 508 018.
8. K.M. Naidu, S/o Jogga Rao, Aged 36 years,
R/o. D.No. 58-32-58-36, Asianipalem Post, Visakhapatnam.
9. S Chinna Rao, S/o Appa Rao, Aged 43 years
R/o. D.No. 15-93/1, Lakshminagar, E Block,
Gopalapatnam Visakhapatnam - 508027.
10. Vammi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Ramu, Aged 38 years.
R/o. D.No. 4-121, Narava Village,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam 508027.
11. Jetti Ramana, S/o Musalayya, Aged 44 years,
R/o. D.No. 1-124, Jerripothupalem, Pendurthi,
Chinatagatla Post, Visakhapatnam.
12. Komati Appala Naidu, S/o Ramulu, Aged 42 years,
R/o D.No. 1-117, Pedanarava Post,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam - 508 027.
... Applicants in OA/312/2014.
(By Advocate: Mr. M A Rao)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep by its Under Secretary to Govt of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi.
Page 5 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
2. The Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension,
(Department of Personnel and Training),
New Delhi 110 001. Represented by its Director.
3. Directorate of Civilian Personnel,
Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Integrated Headquarters,
D-II, Wing Sena Bhawan New Delhi -110 011.
4. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam - 530 014.
5. The General Manager,
Naval, Armament Depot,
NAD Post Visakhapatnam - 530009.
6. The Base Victualling Officer,
Base Victualling Yard,
NAD Naval Base (Post),
Visakhapatnam-530 009.
7. Chief of the Naval Staff,
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy).
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
... Respondents in OA/312/ 2014.
(By Advocate: Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 504/2014:
1. Yerra Sankara Rao, S/o. Thatha Rao, aged 37 years,
R/o. D.No. 38-1-2/2, Srinivasa Street,
Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.
2. K.Demudu, S/o. Somusatty, aged 26 years,
R/o D.No. 19-231, Ration Depot Veedi,
Chandranagar, Gopalapatnam Visakhapatnam 27.
3. A.V.Someswara Rao, S/o. Swamy Babu, 39 years,
c/o G.Padmavathi, R/o. D.No. 10-118/1,
P.F. Colony, Chinna Musidivada, Visakhapatnam.
4. Y.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Veerswamy, aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No. 36-94-289/1, Pedakothuru, Kancherlapalem,
NH-5, Visakhapatnam 08.
5. P.Kannarao, S/o Bangaraiah, aged 42 years,
R/o. D.No. 58-12-83/1, Durgapuram NAD Post, Visakhapatnam 09.
6. Md. Hydarali, S/o Mustafa, aged 36 years,
R/o. D.No. 38-1-26, Muslim Street, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam 18.
Page 6 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
7. Madaka Appalaraju, S/o. Appanna, aged 44 years,
R/o. D.No. 2/44, Purushottapuram Pendurthi,
Visakhapatnam.
8. Sarakapu Venkat Ramana, S/o. Chinna Appa Rao, aged 39 years,
R/o. D.No. 67-7-34, Sriharipuram,
Malkapuram Post, Visakhapatnam 11.
9. Chukka Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 39 years,
R/o. D.No. 4-155/A, B.C. Colony,
Vepaguta (Post), Pendurthi Visakhapatnam.
10. N.V.V.Satyanarayana, S/o. Nookaraju, aged 39 years,
R/o. D.No. 376, MIG (C2), Venkatadrinagar,
Pendurthi Visakhapatnam - 51.
11. Tayya Krishna, S/o. Guruvulu, aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No. 58-29-19, Vinodnagar, NAD Post,
Visakhapatnam.
12. Ch. Siva Rao, S/o. Tata Rao, aged 43 years,
R/o. D.No. 38-1-6/2, Maharani Street, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.
13. K.Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Sannibabu, aged 39 years,
R/o. D.No. 33-38-107, Marripalem, Narendranagar,
Visakhapatnam.
14. R.Ramana, S/o. Appala Narasamma, aged 40 years,
R/o. D.No. 16-41, S.C. Colony,
Gopalapatnam (Old), Visakhapatnam - 27.
15. I.V.G. Krishna, S/o. Appa Rao, aged 37 years,
R/o. D.No. 10-195, Indranagar, Gopalapatnam,
Visakhapatnam.
16. S. Tataji. S/o. Venkata Ramana, aged 36 years,
R/o D.No. 38-36-33, Sivanagar, Marripalem,
Visakhapatnam.
17. M.Ravi Kumar, S/o. Papa Rao, aged 37 years,
R/o. D.No.2-27-10/1, Mindi Post, BHPV Via Visakhapatnam-12.
18. Kanchipati Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Naidu, aged 45 years,
R/o D.No. 8-60, Kamparapalem Colony,
R.R.V.Puram Post, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam.
19. Gandreddi Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Mahalakshma, aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No. 2-29, Pedanarava Post, Gopalapatnam,
Visakhapatnam -27.
20. Gandreddi Appa Rao, S/o. Ramulu, aged 43 years
D.No. 1-45, Narva Village,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam -27.
Page 7 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
21. Ganreddi Sankara Rao S/o. Reeramulu, aged 47 years,
D.No. 7-103, Pedanarava Post, Gopalapatnam,
Visakhapatnam -27.
22. Ganreddi Narasinga Rao, S/o. Ramunaidu, aged 41 years,
R/o. D.No. 4-164, Pedanarava Post, Gopalapatnam,
Visakhapatnam -27.
23. Kanchipati Sankara Rao, S/o. Naidu, aged 49 years,
R/o. D.No. 8-75, Kanparapalem Colony,
R.R.Puram Post, Visakhapatnam.
... Applicants in OA/504/2014.
(By Advocate: Mr. B Gurudas)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep by its Under Secretary to Govt of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension,
(Department of Personnel and Training),
New Delhi 110 001. Represented by its Director.
3. Directorate of Civilian Personnel,
Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Integrated Headquarters,
D-II, Wing Sena Bhawan New Delhi -110 011.
4. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam - 530 014.
5. The General Manager,
Naval, Armament Depot,
NAD Post Visakhapatnam - 530009.
6. The Base Victualling Officer,
Base Victualling Yard,
NAD Naval Base (Post),
Visakhapatnam-530 009.
7. Chief of the Naval Staff,
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy).
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
... Respondents in OA/504/2014.
(By Advocate: Mrs. K Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG)
Page 8 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1144/2014:
1. K.Veeraju, S/o. Late K.Marini Raju, aged 40,
R/o. D.No.16-9-9, Kotta Jalaripeta, Visakhapatnam 530001.
2. Pithana Surya Prakash, S/o. Late P.Patrudu, aged 37 years,
R/o. D.No. 25-12-89/1, Padmanagar,
Opp. M.U.D.M. High School, Viskhapatnam 530001.
3. Kotni Srinubabu, S/o. Late K.Suri, aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No. 4-8, Old Kothavalasa(Village),
Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District- 535183.
4. Bandi Dalinaidu, S/o. Late B.Bangarayya, aged about 36 years,
R/o D.No. 44-45-40/142, Plot No.151,
Venkateswara Colony, T.C.Palem Viskhapatnam.
5. Vallabhadasu Satyanarayana Ramesh S/o. Late V Madhavrao,
aged about 49 years R/o. Sanjeevayya Colony, T.C.Palem, Kancharapalem
(Post) Viskhapatnam.
6. Chintapalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Ch. Nookaraju,
aged about 39 years, R/o. D.No. 16-38-17/3, Kothajalaripet, Viskhapatnam
530001.
7. Reesu Chinnarao S/o. Late R.Apparao, aged 45 years,
R/o. D.No.37-13-189 Burma Colony, Nehru Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
8. Ansar Ali, S/o. Late Mushtafa, aged 34 years,
R/o. Islampeta, Vadalapudi, Visakhapatnam 530007.
9. O.V.Nagaraju, S/o. O.V. Apparo, aged 31 years,
R/o. Sattivanipalem, Jaggayyapalem Post, Visakhapatnam 5300012.
10. K.Narasinga Rao, S/o. K.Korlayya, aged 37 years,
R/o. D.No. 20-10-28, Paindorapeta, Near Gandhi Statue,
Visakhapatnam 530001.
11. Guri Yerrayamma, S/o Late G.Sanyasi, aged 51 years,
R/o. D.No. 1-88, Mogalipuram Village, M.Naidupalem Post, Sabbavaram
Mandal, Visakhapatnam - 530035.
12. Pillala Apparao, S/o. Late P.Yallayya, aged 41 years,
R/o. D.No. 2-42, Rayapura Agraharam, Shiwaru, Rayapura Agraharam
Colony, Sabbavaram Manda, Visakhapatnam.
13. Kolli Appa Rao, S/o Late K.Apparao, aged 42 years,
R/o. D.No. 6-31, Sathivanipalem Juggayyapalem Post,
Via BHPV Mandal, Visakhapatnam 5300012.
14. Subbarao Appu Apparao, S/o Late S.Demudu, aged 40 years,
R/o. D.No.44-7-1/135, Tharam Racarao Colony,
Thatha Chetty Colony, Visakhapatnam.
Page 9 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
15. Kornala Swarnakala, S/o. K.Venkatarao, aged 51 years,
R/o. D.No. 10-51-53, Nehrunagar, EWS Quarters,
Visakhapatnam.
16. Siram Appalaraju, S/o. S.Apparao, aged 33 years,
R/o. No. 23-29-14/1, Sultalipet, One Town Police Station,
Visakhapatnam 530001
17. Gompa Sanyasama, W/o G.Sayasiarao, aged 55 years,
R/o. D.No. 2-22, B.C.Colony, Vedullanarava Village Post,
VSEZ 50, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam - 530049.
18. Peethale Srinu, S/o P.Eswar Rao, aged 41 years,
R/o. D No. 13-4-8. B.R. Pet, Visakhapatnam 530002.
19. Kandipilli Sridhar, S/o Late K Booloka, aged 32 years
R/o. D.No. 4-11-814/1, Settibaji Street,
Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatnam 530017.
20. Dadi Narasimha Murty, S/o. Late D. Appargo, aged 39 years,
R/o. D.No. 57-24-59, Tummadhapalem,
Kancharlapalem, Visakhapatnam-530008.
21. N.Appalaraju, s/o Late N. Narasinga Rao, aged 35 years,
R/o D.No. 63-1-77, Burma Colony Sriharipuram,
Mikapuram, Visakhapatnam 530011.
22. Seeram Rajkumar, S/o Late S.Pydiraju, aged 35 years
R/o D.No. 13-17-9, Dibbalapalem,
Maharanipet, Visakhapatnam 530002.
23. Laveti Santhosh Sankar Kumar, S/o Late Subramanyam,
aged 32 years, R/o. D.No. 37-13-174, Burma Colony,
Nehrunagar, Visakhapatnam 530007.
24. Varadi Suri Babu, S/o. V.Narasayya, aged 28 years,
R/o. D.No. 28-18/1, Kanthi R.K. Colony,
Vadalapudi Post Visakhapatnam - 530046.
25. Penta Nookaraju, S/o. P.Simhachalam, aged 40 years,
R/o. D.No. 2-40-61/53, Anjayyanagar, MUP Sector -6,
Visakhapatnam 530017.
26. Gavara Srinivasa Rao, S/o. G.Demudu, aged 37 years,
R/o. D.No 1-92, Narava Gopalapatnam Post,
Visakhapatnam -530017.
27. Gudia Suryanarayana Reddy, S/o. Late G.Ramulu, aged 36 years,
R/o. D.No. 1-41, Narava Gopalapatnam, Salipet,
Visakhapatnam - 530027.
28. Bondala Venkatappa Rao, S/o. Late B.Pothuraju, aged 35 years,
R/o. D.No. 44-45-40/198, Venkateswara Colony,
Thatichettupalem, Visakhapatnam.
Page 10 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
29. Peddada Ramana, S/o. Late P.Apparao, aged 35 years,
R/o. D.No. 59-20-20, Harijana Street,
Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam - 530011.
30. Bumuri Appala Ramana, S/o Late B. Sanyasi, aged 43 years,
R/o. D.No. 6-582, S.C. Colony, Dairy Farm Post,
Pedagalla Visakhapatnam - 530040.
31. Yenneti Kanaka Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late V Sriramulu, aged 34 years,
R/o. D. No.5-13-30/2, Thunglam, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam -530012.
32. Kavall Veeraju, S/o Late Somulu aged 38 years,
R/o 2-23-24, Paindorapet, Kothajalaripet, Visakhapatnam 530001.
33. Kanchu Boina Bangaraju, S/o. Late K. Apparao, aged 34 years,
R/o. 27-81, Appanapalem, Vepagunta,
Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam - 530047.
34. Kadu Bhaskar, s/o Late K.Apparao, aged 34 years,
R/o. D.No. 8-135, Varalakshminagar, Vepagunta,
Pendurthi Post, Visakhapatnam - 530047.
35. Badam Madhu, s/o Late B.G. Rao, aged 39 years,
R/o. D.No 33-27-11/1, Dhobi Street, Allipuram,
Visakhapatnam - 530004.
36. Devadula Ravi, s/o Late D.Sankara Rao, aged 34 years,
R/o. D.No. 5-28, Narava Gopalapatnam,
Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam - 530027.
37. Pudi Apparao, s/o Late P. Sathiraju, aged 32 years,
R/o. D.No. 14-77, Indhiranagar,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam 530027.
38. Gottipallivernerrada Venugopala Kishire Kumar
s/o Late G.Satyanarayana, aged 34 years,
R/o. D.No. 12-76, Lakshminagar, Gopalapatnam,
Visakhapatnam 530027.
39. Barri Ravi, s/o B. Polarao, aged 34 years,
R/o. D.No. 64-23-25, Sriharipuram(Down),
Gullalapalem, Malkapuram Post, Visakhapatnam - 530011.
40. Prasngi Sankara Rao, s/o P.Mahalakshmi, aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No. 64-20/1, Mallkapuram Post,
Visakhapatnam 530011.
41. Mamidi Srinivasa Rao, s/o Apparao, aged 40 years,
R/o. D.No. 71-31-1655/A, Jayanra Colony,
Gandhinagar Post, Visakhapatnam 530005.
42. Chiydri Trinadha Swamy, s/o Ch. Apparao, aged 34 years,
R/o. D.No.12-42/4, Lakshminagar,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam - 500027.
Page 11 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
43. Devadula Srinivasa Rao, s/o D. Nanaji,
R/o D.No. 3-107, Narava, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam 530027.
44. Karakani Raju, s/o K.Sanyasi Rao, aged 33 years,
R/o. D.No 1-42, Ambedkar Nagar, Old Adavivaram,
Simhachalam Visakhapatnam 530028.
45. Dasari Narasinga Rao, s/o D.Nookaratu, aged 36 years,
R/o. D.No. 10-22-15, Pethani Street,
Maharanipet, Visakhapatnam - 530002.
46. Ganthakoru Satyaraju, s/o G. Malalakshmf,
R/o. D.No. 6-64/1, Narvava Gopalapatnam,
Visakhapatnam 530027.
... Applicants in OA/1144/2014.
(By Advocate: Mr. K Siva Reddy)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep by its Under Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block.
New Delhi.
2. The Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension,
(Department of Personnel and Training),
New Delhi 110 001. Represented by its Director.
3. Directorate of Civilian Personnel,
Ministry of Defence (Navy), Integrated Headquarters,
D-II, Wing Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011.
4. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam - 530 014.
5. Admiral Superintendent,
Government of India, Ministry of Defence 42,
BuildingNaval Dickyard, Visakhapptnam-530 014.
6. Chief of the Naval Staff,
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy).
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
... Respondents in OA/1144/2014.
(By Advocate: Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC)
----
Page 12 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
COMMON ORDER(ORAL)
(As per Hon'ble Dr.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) Since the issue involved is common and the facts and circumstances being similar, all the OAs have been taken up together for consideration and a common order is being passed. However, OA No.505/2014 is taken as a lead case and the pleadings on record in the said OA are referred to. The relief sought in the said OA is as under:
"(i) To declare the proceedings No.CP(NG)/ 5121/Regularisation dated 19.09.2013 issued by the Directorate of Civilian Personnel, respondent No.3, in rejecting the recommendations made by the 4th respondent herein for regularization of temporary casuals one time-time basis of the applicants;
(II) Declare that the applicants are entitled to be regularized on one-time basis in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.04.2006 as non-die clause which was reiterated and clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 3.8.2010 in State of Karnataka vs. M.K.Kesari and others.
(III) Declare that applicants are entitled to be continued without any break in service till their services are regularized by setting aside the proceedings dated 20.07.2009 issued by Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam, 4 th respondent herein; and
(iv) Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue proceedings or clarification proceedings for regularization of service of the applicants in terms of the Eastern Naval Command Naval Base recommendations for regularization of temporary status and casual labourers with all consequential benefits.
v) and pass such further or other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The present OAs have to be considered as per the the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP Nos.12343, 12370, 13316 & 23942 of 2021 dt. 12.09.2022, followed with earlier orders of this Tribunal, which have attained finality. Earlier, on the subject matter, upon confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court, the Department has implemented the orders of this Tribunal by granting Temporary status and further regularizing the services of the employees, who are similarly situated as that of the applicants. Therefore, this Tribunal, earlier passed orders in these OAs, directing the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants herein as well in terms of the judgment in Page 13 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
Uma Devi's case. The said order has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in the above writ petitions. The Hon'ble High Court has observed in WP No. 12343 of 2021 & batch as follows:
"14. In the considered opinion of this Court, by referring to the aforesaid order, it is not open for the authorities to contend that the applicants are continuing on the basis of the Court orders and on the said count, their request cannot be turned down. Coming to the aspect of working of the applicants against the sanctioned posts, it is to be noted that the authorities, by filing a counter, categorically stated that the applicants have not been appointed against regular sanctioned posts, but, unfortunately, the said aspect missed the attention of the Tribunal.
15. According to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case, one of the mandatory requirements required to be fulfilled is that the candidates seeking regularization must have been engaged against the sanctioned posts. Though the petitioners herein made a categorical assertion in the counter-affidavit, the Tribunal did not consider the same.
16. Having regard to the above mentioned reasons, Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders, dated 21.01.2020, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.505 of 2014 & batch and, consequently, the Original Applications, filed by the respondents herein, stand restored to file for consideration of the issue, referred to supra, and for passing appropriate orders after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders. It is needless to observe that, since the applicants- respondents herein have been fighting for decades together, the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the Original Applications, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
In view of the above, the matter has been remanded back for fresh consideration of this Tribunal.
3. I) During the year 1992-94, the applicants have been engaged as casual labourers and have been working continuously in the office of the respondents. They were confirmed with the Temporary Status during the year 2002, however, on the ground that the applicants does not fulfill the condition laid down in the DoP&T OM dt. 10.09.1993, the said temporary status was withdrawn by the Department. As such, the applicants have submitted various representations and requested for grant of temporary status, followed with Page 14 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
regularization of their services. The applicants have been working as casual employees and are performing regular nature of work in the vacancies in the office of the respondents' organization. In the earlier round of litigation, the applicants along with others have filed OA/1336/2000 before this Tribunal and prayed for regularization of their services as well as to continue them in preference to the juniors and freshers. This Tribunal, followed with the Order dt. 13.07.1999 in OA No.999/1999, disposed the OA/1336/2000 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of regularization on the availability of regular posts, following with the turn of the applicants in the seniority list. The applicants further contended that the seniority list was normally prepared on the basis of the number of days of service put in and request for regularization has to be decided by the department-authorities in accordance with law by following the seniority. It was also observed in the order that, when a casual labour was employed, senior should be continued in preference to juniors and freshers, if any retrenchment has been taken place and that the applicants should not be disengaged from service so long as their juniors are continuing in service. The applicants further contended that, without considering the cases of the applicants for regularization, the respondents have issued notification in Employment News 01-07 April, 2006 for filling up of the vacancies in the cadre of unskilled labour. Being aggrieved, the applicants along with others have filed OA/475/2006 before this Tribunal for a direction to absorb them in the posts of unskilled labourers in the respective establishments in regular vacancies notified in the employment news 01-07 April, 2006 and for consequential benefits. This Tribunal, vide Order dt. 22.08.2007, disposed the OA/475/2006, leaving it open to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants in the light of Page 15 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors.[2006 (4) SSC 1].
II) Subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umadevi case, the Ministry of Defence issued Proceedings dt. 12.06.2006 stating that no case of casual labourers will be processed for regularization against the regular vacancies which are to be filled as per the relevant Recruitment Rules. Similarly, in respect of HQ ENC, it was stated that the cases of temporary status casual labourers for age-relaxation for regularization will not be processed further. Further, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension has issued OM dt. 11.12.2006, followed with the Hon'ble Supreme Court guidelines in Paragraph 44 of the Judgment dt. 10.04.2006 in Umadevi case, and directed that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure the services of such irregularly appointed, who are duly qualified in terms of statutory recruitment rules for the post and who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or Tribunals. Accordingly, the Departments were directed to take steps to implement the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicants further contended that, the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, has also issued OM dt. 12.11.2010 and requested that the services of casual employees may be regularized in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dt. 10.04.2006, subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein. Again the Ministry of Defence issued OM dt. 26.03.2012, requesting all the Administrative Sections/Organizations that the services of casual employees may be regularized as a one-time measure in terms of Ho'nble Supreme Court Judgment dt. 10.04.2006, subject to fulfillment of the Page 16 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
conditions laid down therein. Thereafter, the Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence(Navy), Directorate of Civilian Personnel, vide Order dt. 08.05.2012, sought for comments from the Eastern Naval Command(ENC) on the implementation of the instructions issued in para 7 of OM dt. 26.03.2012. In view of the directives of the Ministry of Defence as well as DoPT, the ENC has taken up the issue of regularization of the temporary status casual labourers as a one-time measure during the Joint Committee Meeting. In pursuance of the decision taken during the JCM, IV Level Committee Meeting, the Eastern Naval Command issued Proceedings dt. 12.07.2012, constituting a Board of Officers under the Presidentship of Director General, Naval Project, Visakhapatnam. The Board of Officers, after making in depth study of the feasibility of regularization of temporary status casual labourers, in view of legal perspective involved and inputs received from JCM representatives, interaction/discussion with the Unions, the Board has recommended the one-time regularization of temporary status casual labourers of HQ ENC. The said recommendations of the Board have been forwarded to the Directorarte of Civilian Personnel, Ministry of Defence(Navy), Integrated Headquarters, New Delhi and requested to pursue with the Ministry of Defence for one-time measure for regularization of casual services. It is further contended that the Chief of Naval Staff, Integrated HQ, sought for certain comments on the Board of Officers' proceedings. The ENC, vide Letter dt. 12.02.2013, offered its comments on the queries raised by the Integrated HQ and given reasons to pursue with the Ministy of Defence for one-time regularization of the temporary status employees, including the applicants herein. Vide Letter dt. 23.05.2013, the Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence, raised some more queries along with Headquarters file Page 17 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
Noting dt. 16.04.2013 and requested to clarify with regard to paragraph 21(e) of the Note File dt. 16.04.2013. In response to the same, the ENC submitted Clarification dt. 26.07.2013 that there are substantial vacancies available in erstwhile Group D posts in units of this Headquarters. Para 21(a) of the ENC states that no recruitment rules were followed for engaging the daily wage labourers and none of the temporary status and daily wage labourers fulfill all the conditions indicated in Para 21(a). However, the Board recommended that the services of persons who have completed 10 years of minimum service are to be considered for regularization under one-time measure. It was also specified that, in the event of regularization of daily wage labourers and temporary status labourers, they will be classified as Group-C regular employee with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-, subject to possessing of the minimum qualification and other criteria. However, Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence(Navy), Directorate of Civilian Personnel, New Delhi issued Proceedings dt. 19.09.2013, rejecting the claim for regularization. It also referred to the Proceedings of the DoP&T OM dt. 09.07.2013. It is further contended that the applicants have sought information under Right to Information Act and the Department has furnished certain documents. However, the Proceedings dt. 09.07.2013 referred to the said impugned proceedings dt. 19.09.2013 have not been made available to the applicants.
III) According to the applicants, as on date on which the deliberations were held by the Board of Directors at ENC, there were 255 employees working on casual status in Base Victualling Yard {in short BVY(V)} and 25 persons working under temporary status. Further, out of 280 casual labourers and temporary status employees, 278 employees have put in more than 10 years and above service. The HQ ENC, vide Letter dt. Page 18 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
17.09.2012 addressed to the Board President, Office of Director General, Naval Projects, that there are 920 VSL vacancies available in various units under HQ ENC as on date and that recruitment in unskilled category has been conducted by NDV during the month of November, 1997 under special drive for recruitment of PHC candidates and ND(V) has conducted recruitment in 2006-07. Thus, there was no recruitment since 1993 and the applicants have been continuing in those vacancies. However, only to overcome the regularization, Proceedings of the DoP&T dt. 07.06.1988 which mandated the Department not to engage the daily labour/casual labour in the permanent vacancies, reports are being forwarded to the higher authorities that the applicants herein and similarly placed persons are not working against the sanctioned posts, but the fact remains that there were vacancies in the sanctioned posts and no recruitment took place from 1993 till 2006-07. Further, the applicants have relied upon various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of regularization. Since the Respondent No.1 has not considered the claim of the applicants for grant of temporary status and further regularization, the applicants have filed the present original applications.
4. After notices were issued, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed reply, opposing the relief. It is submitted that the applicants are not working against the vacant sanctioned posts and, further, none of the applicants before this Tribunal in the aforesaid OAs are fulfilling the conditions laid down in the DoPT OM dt. 10.09.1993 that they have to work at least for 240 days in a year. The respondents contended that, after directions of this Tribunal, other employees were granted temporary status who were fulfilling the criteria of 240 days(206 days in the case of offices Page 19 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
observing 05 days week). The respondents' counsel prayed for dismissal of the OA.
5. This Tribunal, in the earlier round of litigation, vide Order dt. 21.01.2020, has set aside the Impugned Order dt. 19.09.2013 and directed the respondents to immediately carry out the work and study how many more posts are required and consider the case of the applicants, in terms of the judgment in Uma Devi's case. The respondents have challenged the Order dt. 21.01.2020 of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12343 of 2021 & batch with a stand that the applicants services were not utilized against the vacant sanctioned posts and the Tribunal has not considered the same while passing orders. The Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dt. 12.09.2022, remanded the matter to this Tribunal for fresh consideration on the point of vacant sanctioned posts.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
7. I) The learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that the persons who are juniors to the applicants have been granted temporary status, in view of the orders of this Tribunal. However, the applicants have not been considered for grant of temporary status, despite they are continuously working and similarly situated. Though in the year 1988, policy has been framed for grant of temporary status as well as regularization for the first time, subsequently, with certain modifications, the DoPT has issued another OM in the year 1993 and the condition of 'days of work' has been incorporated. The learned counsel for the applicants further contended that, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi, the Ministry of Defence has issued OM and a Board was constituted for Page 20 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
consideration of grant of temporary status as well as regularization as a one- time measure. After going through the record, the Board has observed that the applicants who are continuously working in the organization for 10 years or more may be regularized as a one-time measure in accordance with Supreme Court Order dt. 10.04.2006 and DoPT OM dt. 06.03.2012. However, without considering the recommendations of the Board which was constituted for this purpose, the Ministry of Defence, has passed a cryptic and non-speaking Order dt.19.09.2013, rejecting the claim which was pointed out to this Tribunal. This Tribunal, followed with the orders passed in the matter of similarly situated persons, directed the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants as well. However, the Department has challenged the order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court, after detailed deliberation, on the count that the applicants were not engaged against the sanctioned posts and this point has not been considered by this Tribunal, the matter has been remanded back with a direction to consider the said aspect i.e. whether the applicants were engaged against the sanctioned posts or not.
II) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that the applicants, who were engaged as casual labourers on daily wage basis, have not worked either for 240 days or 206 days. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the Board's recommendation has not been accepted by the Ministry. As such, the applicants who were continuously working in the Department are not coming under the Scheme of 1993 as well as not fulfilling the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi. As far as the other employees are concerned, since they are Page 21 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
fulfilling the criteria under the Scheme of regularization framed by the DoPT in the year 1993 that they have to work for 240/206 days in a year, their cases have been considered for grant of regularization, though these employees were juniors to the applicants.
8. It is to be noted that, it is not in dispute that the applicants are working on daily wage basis since 1992. Even though the DoPT has issued the Scheme for the first time in the year 1988 with an advice not to engage such casual labourers on daily wage basis, subsequently, in the year 1993, certain conditions have been included for grant of temporary status subject to number of days working. It is also to be noted that the Department is in need of manpower and, in spite of the advice and directions, they were continuously engaging people on daily wages in the form of casual labourers. Admittedly, in the record sheet of Board Proceedings, it was reflected that there was a ban of regular recruitment and the sanctioned posts were lying vacant. Therefore, to run the administration, the respondents have utilized and extracted the services of the persons like the applicants as casual labourers on daily wage basis. It is also to be noted that, followed with the Scheme of 1988 as well as 1993, one of the note sheets prepared by the Department in the year 2000, the respondents themselves admitted that three employees viz., Ch. Munikumar, G S Bhardwaj & Rokkam Srinu have worked on non-industrial side for more than 206 days in the years 1998 and 1999, but their cases were not considered for temporary status and regularization. Aggrieved over the same, the three casual labourers filed OA/1617/2013 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal, vide Order dt. 16.09.2015, considering all the facts and contentions raised by both the sides, passed the following orders:
Page 22 of 33
OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
"5. The point for consideration is whether the applicants are entitled for the relief as prayed for.
6. It is pertinent to point out here that while going through the cases cited by the applicant, it is evident that apart from these cases, there were other such OAs filed by casual labourers in the organization of R-3. The cited OA/04/95 was filed by 13 applicants working in the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad as casual employees since 24.02.1992. The said scheme of DoPT was reflected in the instructions of Ministry of External Affairs in their letter dt.04.05.1994. Orders were issued by the Passport Officer, Hyderabad granting temporary status to the applicants along with others as per the aforementioned letter of Ministry of External Affairs. Subsequently, the Ministry of External Affairs issued instructions that temporary status could not be conferred on casual employees who had not been engaged through employment exchange and who had not completed one year mandatory service. Accordingly, as the applicants did not fulfill the aforementioned conditions, the temporary status granted to them was cancelled by the Regional Passport Officer vide Order dt. 05.07.1994. Subsequently, vide Order dt. 07.12.1994, their services were terminated. The relief sought for in the OA was to declare the order dt. 02.12.1994 as illegal, arbitrary and to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants. It was held by this Tribunal that merely because the applicants were not sponsored through the employment exchange at the time of their initial appointment, there was no justification to withdraw the temporary status conferred on them. Therefore, this Tribunal vide Order dt. 22.08.1997 disposed of the OA by directing that the applicants shall be continued as casual employees in the office of the R-1 so long as there is sufficient work and the respondents may consider regularizing the services of the applicant having regard to the fact of their working in the office of the R-1 for a continuous period of 240 days in a year, during their two spells of engagement.
7. The applicants have referred to this case in para-IV(d) of OA which has been duly reflected by us in para-2(iii)(a) above, however on going through the OA/04/95, it is found that there are 13 applicants who have filed the OA, but not 54 as mentioned by the applicants in the OA. The applicants state that the order of this Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however the applicants have failed to file the said orders. From a perusal of the order passed by this Tribunal, it is clear that being sponsored by the employment exchange was not considered essential for grant of temporary status.
8. In the second cited OA/264/2000, the applicants therein engaged during 1992 and inspite of having put in more than 240 days of continuous service, they have not been confirmed with temporary status and have not been regularized. The relief sought for by them was to grant temporary status and regularization in accordance with the said scheme. This Tribunal vide its Order dt. 15.09.2000, disposed of the OA with the following directions:
"a) The applicants shall be continued as casual workers in the office of the Respondent No.1, if there is sufficient work and need for causal engagement.
b) The respondent No.1 may consider regularization of the services of the applicant No.2 having regard to the fact he has been working in the office of R-1 for a continuous period of 240 days right from the year 1997.
c) The Respondent No.1 may consider regularization of the services of the applicant No.1 having regard to the fact that he Page 23 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
has worked in the office of Respondent No.1 for a continuous period of 240 days in a year right from 1996."
9. From the above, it is clear that the applicants in the present OA are similarly situated to that of the above cited 264/2000. The 1st Applicant in the present OA worked 237 days during 1998, 208 days during 1999, the 2nd applicant had worked 207 days during 1999 and the 3rd applicant worked 206 days during 1998 and 210 days during 1999. With reference to the order of this Tribunal in OA/264/2000 dt. 15.09.2000, a detailed proposal dt. 08.01.2000 was sent by R-3 to R-2 in which the year wise particulars of the applicants were indicated from 1992-2000. It was indicated therein that the applicants fulfilled the requirement of completion of 206 days as they were engaged in the office observing 05 days a week, however, they have not given temporary status as they have not fulfilled the condition of coming through the employment exchange. In fact, in the proposal R-3 referred to this Tribunal's order in OA/04/95 dt. 22.08.1997 was challenged by the respondents in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. by W.P.1079/98 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court stating that sponsorship through employment exchange has been set at naught by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. Shri K.B.N. Visweswara Rao (1996 (6) SCC 216). Therefore, R-3 requested R-2 to accord necessary approval for implementing this judgment relating to grant of temporary status to the applicants. R-2 vide order dt. 03.10.2001(page 15 of the OA) addressed to R-3 granting their approval for implementation of the order of this Tribunal in OA/264/2000.
10. On going through the relevant internal correspondence between R-2 and R-3 relating to grant of temporary status to the applicants, it becomes clear that they are similarly situated to that of the applicants in OA/264/2000. The applicants rightly state that the OAs filed by similarly situated persons were allowed and they have been granted temporary status, whereas they have been denied the same. This was due to the fact that, OA/1660/2003 was unattended by their Advocate, this Tribunal gave ex-parte order dt. 10.03.2005 stating that the applicant did not fulfill the conditions in the said scheme. On perusal of OA/1660/2003 and we found that the respondents had filed reply statement challenging the relief sought for by the applicant, the applicant was given an opportunity to file rejoinder, however, the opportunity was not availed by them and accordingly, an ex-parte order was passed stating that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions stiuputated in the DoPT OM dt. 10.09.1993
11. On basis of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and owing to the fact that the 03 applicants in this case are similarly situated to the applicants in the cited cases, we accordingly direct the respondents to grant temporary status and consequently regularize the services of the applicants on par with their juniors with all consequential benefits, as per rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. In the result, OA is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs."
9. From a bare perusal of the record, it is seen that the applicants in OA/1617/2013 are juniors to the applicants in the present OA. It is to be Page 24 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
noted that when the Board has been constituted for consideration, in its proceedings, it has recorded the following:
xxx.
"4. Who are Casual Labourers? A casual labourer is a very common term that is often used in the community of employers. They use casual labour to describe the employees who perform variety of activities but these employees usually work part time or on a temporary basis. A casual worker is mostly employed to a limited amount of time per day or for a week. There are also many different types of casual workers. They are part time helpers, temporary helpers, morning labourer, probation workers or workers who do not possess a social security number. A casual labourer can be traditionally defined as a person who is employed to do one particular job. The casual labourer comes only in some occasions and does job for the employer. This person cannot have all the rights possessed by the regular full time labourers. A Casual employee may be hired to work occasional and irregular hours on an as- needed basis or to provide supplemental help during periods of unusual circumstances. Otherwise, the position should be filled as a regular or term appointment. In the absence of a statutory definition regarding casual employment, the courts have generally interpreted the term 'casual' to mean an employee who works only on demand by the employer. The essence of casualness is the absence of a firm advance commitment as to the duration of the employee's employment or the day or days (or hours) the employee will work. The term casual labour has been explained by the Hon'ble Court in High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar (LPA No. 249/1998, date of decision:12-02-2001), as a person who is engaged through an appointment order or otherwise on daily rated basis for rendering casual service to a Department. The following factors have been considered in case laws as relevant indicators of the existence of a casual employment relationship:-
(a) The way in which wages are paid. The hourly rates are more consistent with casual employment than are weekly wages.
(b) The period of time over which the employment extends. Longer the length of service the less likely the employee is a casual employee.
(c) The number of hours worked per week. The more numerous the hours worked, the less likely the employee is a casual employee.
(d) Whether the employee had a consistent starting and set finishing time. The more consistent the hours, the less likely the employee is casual.
(e) Whether the employee worked according to a roster system that was published in advance. The more regular and planned are the hours the less likely the employee is casual.
(f) Whether there was a reasonable mutual expectation of continuity of employment. If so, the less likely the employee is a casual.
(g) Whether notice was required by the employer prior to the employee being absent or on leave. If so, the less likely the employee is a casual.
(h) Whether the employee was informed of the casual nature of the employment. If not, the employee is less likely to be casual.
5. It is important to determine the nature of the employment relationship, as a casual employee, generally, does not have access to entitlements available to Page 25 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
part- time or weekly employees, eg annual leave, personal/carer's leave, public holidays, etc.
6. In the past, daily wage labourers/casual USLs were recruited by all Units in the Command as sponsored by local Employment Exchange or as spot employment to carry out the duties of cleaning, conservancy, ship or production floor maintenance, etc. Initially all Units were engaging casual labourers individually, however, subsequently two labour pools were formed at ND(V) and BVY(V) in accordance with HQENC directives. Currently ND(V) and BVY(V) pools have 248 and 280 personnel respectively.
7. In the ND(V), from the beginning, casual labourers were sponsored by the local employment exchange. They were engaged on temporary casual basis with intermittent breaks up to the year 1993. During the year 1993-94, 54 in number such temporary casual labourers were converted into continuous casual and were conferred temporary status during the year 2002.
8. However, as per the guidelines laid down in DOP&T OM No.51016/2/90- Estt- C dated 10 Sep 1993, it was observed that these 54 labourers had not served for 240 days in a calendar year and accordingly, the temporary status conferred upon them was withdrawn w.e.f 31 Jul 2002.
9. These 54 labourers approached the honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad for grant of Temporary Status. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of the O.A in favour of the applicants. The ND(V) then filed WP 2135/03 against the said order where the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed to consider the case of the respondents as per the existing instructions in vogue.
10. Further, in deference to the order of the honourable High Court, a board was constituted to verify whether these 54 casual labourers had performed duties for 240 days in a calendar year. The Board after verifying the records, brought out that on 16 out of the 54 labourers performed duties for 240 days in a calendar year. Accordingly, these 16 labourers were granted Temporary Status w.e.f 06 Apr 2005 and they are presently continuing to work in the capacity of Temporary Status Jabourers.
11. Subsequently, the remaining 38 labourers have approached the courts claiming that they are also required to be considered for grant of Temporary Status. However, the Hon'ble High Court directed that "in case of engaging any casual labourers in future, first preference shall be given to the petitioners" Accordingly, these 38 ex-ship batch labourers are being engaged on daily wage basis by ND(V). This number has also, over a period of time, decreased to 30 due to deaths and other casualties.
12. On 31st March 2010, the above ex-ship batch labourers submitted their representations to the Union Defence Secretary, which were disposed of by a speaking order dated 01 June 11 indicating that the contention/submission made by the individuals in the representation have no merits and liable for rejection and accordingly rejected.
13. During the year 2003, a Standing Board was constituted for engagement of daily wage labourers. This Board identified 300 candidates eligible for being engaged on daily wage basis. In due course of time, the number has decreased to 203 (by virtue of appointment, long absence and other Page 26 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
causalities). Presently only these 203 casual labourers (wards of deceased employees) and 30 ex-ship batch labourers are being engaged on daily wage rates in the Naval Dockyard. Similarly the current number of personnel in the BVY stands at 280.
14. The strength of the unskilled labourers borne in the Naval Dock Yard has gradually declined over the years due to retirements, deaths and other casualties. Presently, the total borne strength is only 186 out of the sanctioned strength of 773 (with a deficiency of 587 labourers). As on date a total of 920 USL vacancies exists in all Units of Eastern Naval Command.
15. Recruitment of Unskilled Labourers (USLs) (Special Drive for PHC was held during 1997 wherein only 17 posts were filled up). Thereafter, no recruitment of USLs was undertaken by ND(V)
16. IHQ, MOD(N)/DCP vide letter CP (NG)/5121/PC dated 08 May 12 has requested all the three Commands to submit their comments on para 7 of GOI, Ministry of Defence OM No.8(1) 2012/D(Civ II) dated 26 Mar 12. In para 7 of this OM, it is stated that the services of casual employees may be regularized as a onetime measure in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement dated 10 Apr 06 subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein.
17. After JCM IV level meeting held on 25 May 12, this BOO was constituted to study and suggest recommendations on the issue of regularization of temporary status and casual labourers employed in various Units of HQENC."
xxx.
49. The Board has examined the case of regularization of casual labourers keeping in view all available correspondence, views submitted by the Unions, OMs issued by DOPT, various CAT judgements, and Court orders.
50. After examining relevant correspondence, it is observed that, casual labourers on daily wage basis were employed in the various Units of Command either through employment exchange/on the spot or under employment assistance scheme) (children/wife of deceased Group 'D" & 'C' employees, wards of employees due for retirement within next 05 years) as per the directives of ENC from time to time. At present there are 248 and 280 casual labourers in ND(V) and BVY(V) pools respectively. An analysis of the list of all these casual employees reveal that date of initial employment varies from 1991 to 2010. Over the years these casual labourers have been continuously performing various duties of an Unskilled Labourer (USL) in different Units of ENC. During these years there was continuously increasing shortage of regular Unskilled Labourers (HQENC letter PIO/0128/32 dated 26 Mar 10 is relevant). 'No recruitment has taken place (due to a continuous ban on recruitment) from year 1998 onwards. The last recruitment in ND(V) was for PHC category where in 17 personnel were employed in 1997. The last regularization of casual labourers was undertaken in the past by HQENC in 1997(HQENC letter CE/2003/(3) dated 08 Aug 97 where in 59 continuous casual unskilled labourers were regularised) and again in 2006 (HQENC letter CE/2003/4/Ty status dated 02 Jan 2006 where 09 Ty status of casual labourers from BVY(V) pool were regulatised). HQSNC also undertook Page 27 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
regularisation of 59 casual labourers in Sep 2010 (HQSNC letter CS/2702 dated 16 Sep 10 refers).
xxx.
51. All the unions and workers representatives who presented their cases to the Board both in writing and during meetings were unanimous in their views that the casual labour force currently being employed under both the labour pools have been working in the command for extended duration and they deserve to be regularized in view of availability of vacancies and workload in the command.
52. The relevant government orders in the form of Office memoranda / letters have repeatedly have stressed the principle that the employment of casual labourers is to be minimized and restricted to purely temporary nature works. For all permanent nature works, staff on permanent establishment is to be used. However dichotomy has arisen because of non availability of staff as per the sanction and ban on recruitment for extended duration that has created a mismatch between availability of workload and manpower forcing the establishments to employ casual labourers.
xxx.
55. The court however made exception to the above position i.e., from the general principles against 'regularisation' in terms of the para 44 of the judgement. Relevant extracts of para 44 read as follows: -
"... There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals ...". The apex court also clarified that "if such appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the constitution, illegality cannot be regularized".
56. The Board extensively discussed the applicability of this landmark judgment in the instant case and following emerged with respect to the highlighted phrases (at para 55 above):-
xxx.
c) Employed against duly sanctioned vacant posts. Over the years the work load in all Units of ENC has grown multi-fold (in terms of number of assets, organisations). However, there was a continuous and growing shortage of regular Unskilled Labourers (HQENC letters PIO/0128/32 dated 26 Mar 10 and CE/2003/5/Ty Status/Board dated 17 Sep 12 are relevant, and copies are placed at Appendix 'E', Page 28 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
Annexure 1, Enclosure-1, and Appendix 'F' respectively) necessitating requirement of casual labourers. A correlation prevails between the availability of vacant sanctioned group 'D' posts and employment of casual labourers. Administrative approvals and budget sanctions for engagement of casual labourers were accorded by the successive competent authorities consistently. Proper recruitment however, could not be effected due to ban on recruitment. xxx.
58. Applicability of 240/205 days rule. The issue of none of the workers having completed 240/205 days per year surfaced repeatedly during the deliberations and therefore was examined in depth. In the opinion of this board, this condition is applicable only for the purpose of grant of a Ty status to employees recruited through employment exchange and their subsequent regularisation (DOPT letters dated 31 Jan 91 and 10 Sep 93) as discussed in para 53 (b) & (c) above. For all other cases of engagement of casual employees, guidelines contained in DOPT OM dated 07 Jun 1988 continue to remain applicable. This OM does not lay down the pre- condition of having worked for 240 days for regularization. Referring to all the Government orders and the court cases referred above, it is quite clear that the 240/205 days has no bearing on the present case.
59. As has been brought out in the deliberations above, the examination of the facts of the case, orders issued by various authorities and legal cases leads to a conclusion that a majority of the casual labourers being employed in various units of Eastern Naval Command at Visakhapatnam have been irregularly employed for a period exceeding ten years against vacant sanctioned posts, not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals. The present case therefore qualifies on all counts ↓and conditions laid down in the DOP&T OM No 8(1) /2012/D(Civ II) dated 26 Mar 2012, which has mandated regularization of services of casual employees as a onetime measure in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 Apr 2006.
60. Hence the board is of the opinion that all the casual labourers who have been employed for 10 years or more may be regularized as a onetime measure in accordance with the Supreme Court order dated 10 Apr 2006 and DOPT OM dated 06 Mar 12.
Conclusion:
61. The Board has examined the case of regularization of casual labourers in detail after scrutinizing thoroughly all the available correspondence, relevant court judgements and Govt Orders.
62. Currently there are over 500 personnel in the labour pools of ND(V) and BVY who have been employed as casual labourers to meet the requirements of various Naval units at Visakhapatnam for extended periods up to 21 years. The conditions of their employment and the facts of the case have been examined in the light of orders issued by various authorities and relevant legal cases and deliberated in earlier chapters.
63. It is the opinion of this board that, all those Casual labourers who have been employed for a duration of 10 years and above, fulfil the conditions for one time regularization in terms of DOP&T OM No 8(1)/2012/D (Civ II) Page 29 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
dated 26 Mar 12 and Para 44 of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 Apr 2006 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs Umadevi and may be considered for the same.
64. A subset of these employees who have been accorded Ty status are eligible for consideration for regularization under the terms of MOD Letter No MF.4(3)/89/D(Civ.II) dated 31 Jan 1991 and may be considered for the same.
Recommendations:
65.The Board recommends that a onetime exercise be undertaken to consider regularization of all casual, daily-wage or adhoc employees who have been working for more than 10 years without the intervention of courts and tribunals in terms of para 44 of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 10 Apr 2006 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs Umadevi and Govt of India, and MoD Memorandum No. 8(1)/2012/D(Civ II) dated 26 Mar 12. The recommended conditions for regularisation of casual labourers are as follows:
(a) Individuals should have completed 10 years of minimum service as on the date of issue of order of regularization or any other date as may be promulgated as a qualifying record date for this exercise by the competent authority.
(b) The case for waiving off educational qualifications, physical endurance and age criterion to the extent of his service already performed be taken up with the competent authority. [para 56(b) refers).
(c) That his work and conduct has remained satisfactory during the period he worked as Daily Rate Worker and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him.
(d) Individuals to possess a satisfactory civil verification certificate."
10. It is to be noted that, while giving deliberations, the Board has mentioned various orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the judgment in the matter of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. [(2010) 9 SSC 24] decided on 03.08.2010 as well as Umadevi case(supra) etc. The observation of the Board, though it is mentioned herein above, the same is reiterated as under:
59. As has been brought out in the deliberations above, the examination of the facts of the case, orders issued by various authorities and legal cases leads to a conclusion that a majority of the casual labourers being employed in various units of Eastern Naval Command at Visakhapatnam have been irregularly employed for a period exceeding ten years against vacant Page 30 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
sanctioned posts, not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals. The present case therefore qualifies on all counts and conditions laid down in the DOP&T OM No 8(1) /2012/D(Civ II) dated 26 Mar 2012, which has mandated regularization of services of casual employees as a onetime measure in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 Apr 2006.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nihal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. in CA No.1059 of 2005 along with CA No.6315 of 2013 observed as under:
"21. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilization of the services of large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need.
xxx.
24. Even going by the principles laid down in Umadevi's case, we are of the opinion that the State of Punjab cannot be heard to say that the appellants are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as their appointments were purely temporary and not against any sanctioned posts created by the State.
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in CA Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 decided on 01.08.2018 observed as under:
"8. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore two-fold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid."
12. Admittedly, the Department has been engaging the casual labourers continuously to fulfill the administrative needs as well as requirements of the Page 31 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
establishment, as observed by the Board. It is to be noted that, when some of the employees have been denied the grant of temporary status and regularization, they have approached this Tribunal. When Courts have passed orders in favour of the similarly situated persons, it was the duty of the respondents to verify the facts, followed with the scheme framed by the DoPT as well as instructions issued by the Ministry of Defence. It is also to be noted that the stand taken by the Department that the applicants were not engaged against the sanctioned posts, while regularizing the services of other similar employees in compliance of the orders of this Tribunal, does not sustain. Para 56(c) of the Board Proceedings states that 'A correlation prevails between the availability of vacant sanctioned group 'D' posts and employment of casual labourers'. It is further to be noted that, in Para 59 of the Board Proceedings, it was observed that 'the casual labourers being employed in various units of Eastern Naval Command at Visakhapatnam have been irregularly employed for a period exceeding ten years against vacant sanctioned posts'. However, the same point has not been considered by the Ministry. Further, from a bare perusal of the Ministry's Order, it is seen that the Ministry has not taken into cognizance the Board's observation that the casual labourers are working against vacant sanctioned posts, though they have constituted the Board consisting of competent officers. Therefore, the order of the Ministry dt. 19.09.2013 impugned in the OA does not sustain in the eyes of law, followed with the Board's observation that the casual labourers are working against vacant sanctioned posts, and the same is accordingly set-aside.
13. In view of the above, the applicants are entitled for regularization. Accordingly, the OAs are allowed with a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants against vacant sanctioned posts, Page 32 of 33 OA Nos. 505, 503, 312, 504 & 1144 of 2014.
followed with the seniority, and grant other consequential benefits. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/Ram/
Page 33 of 33