Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This classification has been made to appropriately address the nuances in their respective claims while adjudicating the common issues involved in the present proceedings.

3. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners assailing the common order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, whereby their respective Original Applications were dismissed. The petitioners, who were engaged as daily wage employees on various posts such as Peon, Farrash, Sweeper, Waterman, Chowkidar, and others between the years 1997 to 2008, contend that despite long years of continuous service and repeated recommendations made by the department for their regularization, the respondents, instead of regularizing their services, issued orders dated 04.07.2011 and 25.07.2011 introducing outsourcing of services, followed by instructions dated 14.03.2012 for shifting existing daily wage employees to a contractual employment system through outsourcing agencies. Aggrieved by the said policy decision and consequential actions, the petitioners, along with other similarly situated employees, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing various Original Applications, seeking quashment of the outsourcing policy and a direction for regularization of their services in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, as well as on the ground that similarly situated employees in other regions had been granted regularization.

However, all such Original Applications came to be dismissed by a common order dated 11.10.2013. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal as well as the policy decisions dated 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011, and 14.03.2012, contending that they are entitled to regularization from the date they became eligible, and that the subsequent action of shifting them to a contractual/outsourcing system is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. It is their case that such subsequent developments ought to be treated as non est in the eyes of law.

10.2 To pass suitable Direction(s)/Writ(s)/Order(s) to quash impugned order dated 11.10.2013 passed in Original Application (O.A.) No. 443/2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bench at Jabalpur [ANNEXURE P-1);
10.3 To pass suitable Direction(s)/Writ(s)/Order(s) to quash orders dated 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and instruction dated 14.03.2012 [ANNEXURE P-2) for shifting the daily wagers (petitioners) to contractual employment system;
However, the Tribunal, by a common order dated 11.10.2013, dismissed the said applications along with other connected matters. The petitioners assert that despite dismissal of their claims by the Tribunal, they did not abandon their demand for regularization and continued to assert that the shift to a contractual employment system through outsourcing agencies was illegal and arbitrary. It is the further case of the petitioners that, pursuant to the aforesaid policy, they were compelled to work under contractors appointed by the respondent department, albeit under protest. While some of the petitioners continued in such contractual arrangements for several years, others were subjected to adverse consequences. In certain cases forming part of the present bunch, it is alleged that the petitioners were orally and illegally terminated from service around April 2017, without issuance of any formal order or adherence to due process of law.