Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: IVRI in Mohar Singh vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 30 August, 2017Matching Fragments
5. Heard Shri R.C. Pathak along with Shri Anil Kumar Singh counsel for the applicant and Shri N.P Singh, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicants are entitled for grant of temporary status under the OM dated 10.9.1993 as adopted by ICAR on 23.11.1994. He also claimed regularization of services of applicants in view of agreement entered between the representatives of labourers of IVRI and also in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, H.S.E.B. He relied upon the following the judgments -
8. In the case of Ram Das (supra), the applicant had claimed temporary status on the basis of OM dated 13.10.1983 issued by DOPT on the ground that he was engaged as casual labour on 12.8.1988 at IVRI Izzatnagar Bareilly and he had worked as casual mazdoor in broken spells. It was alleged that he was malafidely disengaged to appoint fresh casual labour in his place. It was the contention of applicant that due to artificial breaks, the applicant could not complete 240 days in the years 1988 to 1993 and, therefore, these artificial breaks, are liable to be ignored. The contention of respondents was that the issue of artificial breaks have already been settled by the Division Bench of C.A.T. Allahabad in OA No. 1336 of 1993 decided on 15.12.1994 and such claim has already been rejected and the OA NO. 387 of 1993 filed by the applicant was also disposed of with the same directions and observations as contained in order dated 15.12.1994 passed in OA NO 1336 of 1993 and thus the applicant cannot raise the same issue again. It was also contended on behalf of respondents that as the applicant had not completed 240 days in none of the years, he was not entitled for temporary status. It was also contended that as the applicant had worked during 20.6.1993 to 21.5.1995 under the strength of interim order dated 23.4.1993 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1336/93, he could not claim the benefit of work done for 240 days during the period, said interim order was operative.
11. In the case of Jai Pal Kashyap (supra) (Annexure A-
26) passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1076 of 2014 (Annexure A 26), the short controversy involved was whether the applicant (Casual Labour) was entitled to the benefit of temporary status in accordance with the provision of OM dated 10.9.1993 of the DOPT which was adopted by the ICAR vide order dated 23.11.1994. In the said case, the claim of applicant was refused by the IVRI mainly on the ground that the applicant was not engaged by the IVRI w.e.f. 1.9.1993 to 10.9.1993 whereas it was admitted that the applicant had worked for 240 days in the year 1991 - 1992. It was contended on behalf of IVRI that as the applicant was not in employment on the date of the commencement of the scheme i.e. 1.9.1993 as such one of the twin conditions fastened to grant of temporary status remains unfulfilled and the applicant was not entitled to the temporary status. Considering the fact, that the applicant was continuously serving from February 1991 though with intermittent recess or breaks, and it was a coincidence that such an intermittent break fell during 1.9.1993 to 10.9.1993 for which the applicant could not be faulted and under these circumstances it was held that the applicant fulfilled the twin conditions of the OM dated 10.9.1993 and the IVRI was directed to process for grant of temporary status w.e.f. 1.9.1993. The order of this Tribunal was also affirmed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in its order dated 29.5.1992 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36752 of 2001.
The following periods of working of present applicants with the IVRI have been stated by the respondents in their counter reply -
Sl. |O.A.No. | Applicants' | Period of working No name 55/15 Kumar to days 26.12.1990 21.3.1991 137 to days 01.01.1992 4.1.1992 to| 151 31.12.1992 | days.
01.01.1993 | 143 to days 31.10.1993 *12.03.1994 | *50 to days.
30.4.1994 *Under cover of stay order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal on 19.4.1994 in OA 506/1994 915/13 Singh to days 14.12.1988 27.5.1989 98 to 5.9.1989 | days.