Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2 OA is fled seeking temporary status and regularisation of _ Services of the applicant in accordance with the Hon'ble Apex Court af ) Judgment in State of Karnataka vy Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.

we" Caste, Coes

3. Brief facts are that the applicant, as per his version, was appointed as Electrician on 15.12.1995 as a temporary contingent employee against a sanctioned post initially for 6 hours per day and thereafter, for 8 hours per day since 2010 onwards. From then on the applicant has rendered uninisrrupted service. However, on being approached several times for granting temporary status/ regularisation of services, respondents while admitting that the applicant was fully qualified have denied the request on the grounds : that, his appointment was made without being sponsored by the employment exchange: scheme to regularise casual employees came to an end on

ie Applying the law in Uma Devi to the case of the applicant, it is seen that the applicant has the requisite qualifications and was appointed against a sanctioned post as per relevant rules with a work experience of more than 10 years as on the date of the judgment, without the caver of any court order. The judgment states that even in cases of irregular appointment the regularisation of the services has to be done. In the instant case, the appointment was defacto regular as was brought out in paras supra. Therefore, the claim of the applicant for regularisation is backed by the above judgment lock, stock and barrel.

pe) ¥) The Uma Devi judgment is to be implemented as a one time measure and therefore, the ease of the applicant cannot be considered is one another ground taken by the respondents to reject regularisation of services of the applicant. Is this stance valid?

True, the Uma Devi judgment has i be operated as a onetime measure. However, onetime would mean that the cases of all thase who come under the ambit of the Uma Devi Judgment are to be covered as a onetime measure. As long as such cases are pending, i they are to be dealt under the law laid down in Uma Devi. This aspect was delved at length and clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its own judgment in State of Karnataka and Ors vy M.L.Resari and Ors "2, Aé the end of six months from the date of decision in Unadevi, cases of several dailpawoxe/ad-iowcasual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several deparmments and insirumentalities did not cammence the one-time regularization process On the offer fend seme Government departments ar fasiramentaliies uaderfaak the one-dine exercise excluding several employees from consideration elther an the ground that their cases were peatiuy of courts or dee te shwer oversight, fp such ecireummtgnoes, the employees wha were entifled to he considered in termis af Para 33 of the decision in Untadevi, will nat lose thelr right ta be considered jor regudarization, merely becense the ope-fie exercise was completed withont considering their cases, or decause the six pionth period mentioned in para 33 of Uinades! hay exelred. The one-time exercise should consider all dailyowagefadhacsthose eaplayees wha had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4, 2006 withow availiee the profection of aay interim orders of courts or tribunals, If any employer had held fhe one-time exercise in terms of para 33 of Umadew, dad dial not consider ihe cases af sone eviployees who were entitled to the benefit af para 33 af Limadevi, the eniplayer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the ane-tew exercise. Phe ane dime exercive will be concludes? only when all the splovees wih are entitled fo be considered in terms of Para S33 of Unaderi, are se considered "

as 2588 by appointment af casual labourers conferred with temporary status on basis of selection-cum- seniority falling which by ---
Had the applicant been granted ternporary status/regularisation by peed eter, Z, Fi applying the GOT scheme for regularisation of services of casual bey &X "n labourers in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Eranakulam bench of «this Tribunal and the different aspects of law in regard to routing of applications through employment exchanges, role of establishment registers, efc., as discussed above, the applicant could have been absorbed in MTS cadre as per recruitment rules cited. Regrettably, it was not fo be and therefore the applicant before the Tribunal.