Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The facts of the case as per the applicant is, that the applicant is working as contract labour under Contract Labour Act 1970. Further DOPT New Delhi issue OM dated 13.10.1983 for regularization of casual employee in Group „D‟ post. The applicant says that the said OM is applicable to him. The ICAR issue letter on 29.03.1984 for engagement of casual labours and he says that same is applicable to the applicant. Further, DOPT issue OM dated 07.06.1998 for recruitment of casual workers and persons of daily wages under review policy. The said OM is applicable to the applicant. The applicant was initially engaged as casual labours in the department in the year 1988, since then he was discharging his duties continuously till 15.08.1995 and had completed 1380 days and thereafter applicant was engaged under the control and supervision of the registered contractor in the department. It is mentionable here that authority concerned had issued working certificates in the name of applicant. The caste certificate issued by the concerned authority on 19.11.1997 in the name of the applicant. One casual labour, Shri Jaipal Kashyap filed a writ petition No. 34493 of 1992 dated 16.09.1992 in the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court and order was passed in favour of Sri Jaipal Kashyap for continuation in service. The said order is also applicable to the applicant. Photocopy of the order of Hon‟ble High Court is enclosed. He further says that the applicant filed OA No. 94 of 1993 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal has granted the stay order dated 26.05.1993 in favour of the applicant and also directed the respondents not to disturb him from the working till further orders. The Assistant Administrative Officer of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly issued order on 19.05.1993 of sanction for engaging applicant as per this Tribunal stay order dated 27.05.1993 passed in OA No. 825 of 1993 and also in OA No. 94 of 1993 stay order dated 26.05.1993. The Assistant Administrative Officer (legal cell) of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly sent a letter on 26.07.1993 to the Administrative Officer, E-IV Section, IVRI Izzat Nagar, Bareilly regarding continuation of applicant on the work. Further he says that the DOPT New Delhi issued OM on 10.09.1993 for regularization of casual labours and granting temporary status and the said OM is totally applicable in the case of the applicant and lawfully entitled for grant of temporary status. Photocopy of the OM dated 10.09.1993 is enclosed as annexure A-10. He further says that the Director IVRI, Izzat Nagar issued letter on 06.07.1994 for recruitment of Assistant Helper - I, i.e. Group „D‟ post without any information to the applicant, leaving aside regularization of the applicant illegally, unlawfully and against policy of Government of India. The ICAR issued letter on 23.11.1994 for granting temporary status to the casual labours The applicant made a representation on 19.12.1994 to Senior Administrative Officer IVRI Izzat Nagar, Bareilly for granting temporary status to the applicant. Further, the applicant alongwith others filed SLP No. 16426 (C) of 1995 in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, Ram Sewak and others vs. Union of India and others for their rightful claims of regularization and continuance in service with the respondent No. 3 and the same has been disposed of on 31.07.1995.

3. The department had invited application form for appointment as Assistant employee Category I Mazdoor in the grade pay of Rs. 750 - 940 in the department only as registered casual labours who have been working as casual labours in the office of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the applicant had submitted his application before the concerned authority on 19.03.1996 for appointment on the post of Mazdoor, but the respondents have not taken any action on the application of the applicant. Further, the applicant has made a representation to higher authority on 04.02.1997 for granting temporary status to the applicant as per circular issued by the Government of India. The IVRI issued letter on 25.02.1997 to all the subordinate authorities to discourage engaging contract labours. One casual labour Shri Ram Das filed OA NO. 377 of 1996, Ram Das vs. UOI and others. The said case was decided on 11.09.2001 in favour of Ram Das with direction to the respondents to reinstate him as temporary status casual labour. The said judgment is fully applicable in the case of the applicant. He further says that Jaipal Kashyap casual labour of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly filed OA No. 502 of 2002 - Jaipal Kashyap vs UOI and other and the same was decided on 30.05.2002 in favour of Jaipal Kashyap. The said judgment is applicant in the case of the applicant. He further says that Jaipal Kashyap again filed OA No. 1076 of 2004 before this Tribunal for granting temporary status and the same was decided on 19.10.2005 in favour of Jaipal Kashyap and thereafter the respondents IVRI has filed CMWP No. 7257 of 2006 on 07.02.2006 in Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court against the order passed by this Tribunal dated 19.10.2005 in OA No. 1076 of 2004. The Hon‟ble High Court not granted stay and issued notices to the respondents. The direction of this Tribunal was to reinstate and grant him temporary status and also to pay arrears of pay and allowances to Jaipal Kashyap. The said judgment is totally applicant in the case of the applicant. He further says that Hon‟ble Supreme Court delivered a judgment on 04.04.2007 Secretary, HSEB (Haryana) Stated Electricity Board vs. Suresh & others on the issue of abolition contract labours. The contract labours be treated as the employee of the main employer. The said judgment is totally applicable to the case of the applicant for the purpose of regularization of temporary status. He further says that authorities issued appointment letter on 12.02.2008 to Jaipal Kashyap granting him temporary status being similarly situated. The Hon‟ble High Court delivered a judgment on 29.05.2012 in Writ Petition No. 36752 of 2001filed by the IVRI Izzat Nagar Bareilly vs. CAT and others i.e. Ram Das. The said judgment is totally applicable to the applicant. The Director, IVRI Izzat Nagar, Bareilly issued appointment letter on 09.04.2013 to Ram Das in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 11.09.2001 and subsequent order of Hon‟ble High Court dated 29.05.2012 and SLP filed by the IVRI Director, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly dismissed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 05.03.2013. The said judgment is totally applicant in the case of the applicant being similarly situated condition entitled for grant of temporary status.

4. The applicant made a representation on 23.05.2013, 07.01.2014 and 01.02.2014 to the respondents and stating therein that he was working from the year 1998 to 15.09.1995 (Six years and 8 months) and also worked as casual labour in their organization as well as with labour contractor of IVRI, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly and requested to respondent No. 3 to grant him temporary status as the same has been given to his juniors i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as per the CAT Allahabad and Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgments with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances with 18% penal interest. He further says that in view of the above the applicant is challenging inaction of the respondents for not granting him temporary status as granted to his juniors i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the applicant further prayed to this Tribunal to issue suitable direction by way of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to grant temporary status to the applicant with all consequential benefits.

8. They further submitted that the contents of paragraph No. 4.23 of the OA are not admitted and say that it is not relevant in the present case because while disposing the writ petition the Hon‟ble High Court observed. "The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, however it is certified that any observation made in this judgment shall not be treated to be precedent in other cases". Therefore, in the present case the applicant is wrongly seeking parity with the case of Shri Jaipal Kashyap when the Hon‟ble High Court has already restricted not to extend the benefit of that judgment to any other person. They have further submitted that the paragraph No. 4.24 of the OA are not admitted. The institute has not given temporary status as per the scheme of DOPT dated 10.09.1993 to Shri Ram Das. He was given temporary status by the order of Hon‟ble Court. It is further submitted that Shri Ram Das has continued his claim for temporary status since 1996 and the aforesaid pronouncement the Director, IVRI has filed writ petition No. 36752 of 2001 and this writ petition has been decided vide judgment dated 29.05.2012 against the respondents organization. The judgment dated 29.05.2012 has been challenged by the respondents before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court affirmed the said judgment passed by the Hon‟ble High Court vide order dated 05.03.2013. In compliance of the aforesaid orders, the IVRI has issued office order dated 09.04.2013 granting the temporary status in favour of Shri Ram Das w.e.f. 01.06.1995 as petitioner in the orders of this Tribunal. They further say that in the instant case no any such type of proceedings has been initiated by the applicant since the date of his disengagement from the IVRI. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled of the benefits which has been extended to Shri Ram Das and Jaipal Kashyap, because he has not completed the twin conditions enumerated in temporary status scheme dated 10.09.1993. They further says that the contents of paragraph No. 4.25 of the OA are denied. The institute has not given temporary status as per the scheme of DOPT dated 10.09.1993 to Shri Ram Das. He was given temporary status by the order of Court.