Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: IVRI in Nand Kishore vs M/O Agriculture 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
915/13 Singh to days
14.12.1988
27.5.1989 98
to 5.9.1989 days.
21.3.1991 60
to days.
21.5.1991
8.2.1993 to 89
12.5.1993 days.
820/13 to 4.5.1991 days.
14.4.1992 37
to days.
22.5.1992
23.5.1992 89
to days.
23.8.1992
08.2.1993 88
to days.
12.5.1993
916/13 to days.
16.12.1989
17.4.1990 90
to days.
15.7.1990
8.3.1991 to 71
21.5.1991 days.
11.8.1992 89
to days.
11.11.1992
4.2.1993 to 122
31.12.1993 days
01.1.1994 79
to days.
30.6.1994
917/13 Kashyap to days
21.5.1991
17.11.1992 80
to days.
06.2.1993
27.4.1993 126
to days
31.10.1993
12.3.1994 81
to days
30.6.1994
1596/15 Singh to days.
28.8.1987
01.4.1988 159
to days.
31.12.1988
01.01.1989 137
to days.
27.11.1989
25.2.1990 91
to days.
31.12.1990
01.01.1991 104
to days.
30.09.1991
16.5.1992 81
to days.
10.8.1992
897/15 Kishore to days.
31.12.1988
1.1.1988 to 107
13.7.1988 days.
1.2.1989 to 158
16.11.1989 days.
6.3.1991 to 18
7.11.1991 days.
56/15 to days.
23.10.1988
01.12.1988 190
to days.
8.10.1989
02.02.1990 99
to days.
15.5.1990
13.5.1989 99
to days.
23.8.1991
12.3.1994 46
to days.
30.4.1994
186/15 9.9.1987 days.
11.3.1989 99
to days.
21.6.1989
25.2.1990 89
to days
10.5.1991
28.1.1991 99
to days
10.5.1991
13.5.1991 99
to days.
23.8.1991
10. OA Daya Ram 01.01.1986 188
No.187/15 to days
17.12.1986
06.05.1987 79
to days
27.07.1987
01.04.1988 99
to days
12.7.1988
11.3.1989 99
to days
21.6.1989
03.09.1990 45
to days
19.10.1990
20.10.1990 96
to days
27.1.1991
01.06.1991 70
to days
11.8.1991
07.01.1992 90
to days
09.04.1992
21.3.1994
30.4.1994 days