Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Kader & Ors vs Union Of India on 20 December, 2010

Bhagwan Singh S/O Shri Sohan Lal vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 6 September, 2013

13. Since it is not disputed between the parties that in both the present Original Applications, a similar controversy is involved, and the applicants have prayed that the order dated 31.05.2011 (Annex. A/7) be quashed and set aside and they may be allowed the payment of Rs. 292/- per day, therefore, in view of the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in OA No. 531/2011 and other connected matters - Abdul Kadar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and also in view of the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 547/2011 and other connected matters - Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.  (supra) and in view of the order dated 24.07.2013 in OA No. 850/2012 and another connected matter - Pawan Kumar Rawal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure A/7) passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to continue making payment to the applicants @ Rs. 292/- per day instead of Rs. 164/- per day from the date when lesser payment of Rs. 164/- per day is paid to the applicants. The applicants are also entitled to arrears of lesser payment paid by the respondents.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdish Solanki S/O Shri Lal Chand vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 4 May, 2016

4. Counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents have not filed reply in view of the fact that in Review Application No.290/00004/2014 in OA No.518/2011 and so many others including RA No.290/00009/2014 filed in OA No.531/2011 (Abdul Kadir & Ors. v. UOI & Ors), this Tribunal vide common order dated 29.04.2014 passed in all these Review Applications has finally set the controversy at rest by correcting the order that the applicants may be paid Rs.222/- per day as basic pay w.e.f. 01.07.2008. Therefore, counsel for the respondents has prayed that this OA may be disposed of in the light of direction passed in similar OAs as well as RAs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hardayal Singh vs M/O Environment, Forest &Amp; Climate ... on 28 September, 2018

The respondents further state that the applicants were initially engaged as daily wagers on need basis and their services were terminated which was subject to judicial review and they were allowed to be reinstated back in 9 service on the same status which they were holding prior to their termination. Thus, in pursuance to the judicial order they were reinstated by different orders as per the earlier round of litigation. Now the applicants have filed the present OA mainly for claiming the benefit of payment @ 1/30th of the pay plus dearness allowance of the regular employee on account that they are working under the respondents but the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as they are employed as daily wagers for performing casual and seasoned work, which is not regular nature of work. Therefore, their claim for being considered as per similar work and claiming similar benefit as that given to the applicants in Abdul Kadir case cannot be compared as the case of the applicants is not identical to that of Abdul Kadir. These applicants are assigned the work which is purely temporary/casual nature like pruning of the trees, filling the sand in the poly bags in experimental plots/nursery and pouring the water into the small trees/plants etc. As their work is purely temporary and seasonal, they cannot be compared with regular employees. Therefore, the present OA deserves to be dismissed.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ratan Lal Acharya vs M/O Finance on 24 September, 2018

15. It is very clear that the person who slept over his rights and for the grievance of 2012 has approached this Tribunal only in 2016 cannot seek similar benefits as those persons who have already raised their grievance at much earlier stage, and therefore, question of stating that they are similarly placed as that of Abdul Kadir & Ors. (supra), this cannot be a ground to get identical relief as held by the Apex Court in several judgments i.e. (i) (2015) 1 SCC 347 in the case of State of UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivasthava & Ors. (ii) (2009) 2 SCC 479 in the case of S.S. Balu & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. and (iii) (2007) 2 SCC 725 in the case of A.P. Steel Re-rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdish Solanki vs M/O Finance on 29 March, 2019

The same was applicable to temporary status casual labour and also to casual workers who are doing the same work as that of regular worker who are entitled to 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the time scale of pay of the Group 'D' staff plus dearness allowances. 3rd respondent issued an order dated 09.07.2007 for implementation of the same and case of the applicant fell in the latter category. An amount of Rs 164 per day was fixed for such casual workers, which was revised to Rs 222 w.e.f. 01.07.2008 vide order dated 12/17.11.2008 and Rs 292 w.e.f. 01.10.2010. Some similarly situated casual labours successfully challenged the withdrawal of aforesaid OM and claimed that wages @ Rs 292 per day w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and their OAs have been allowed vide order dated 14.08.2012, passed in case of Shri Abdul Kadir and Others Vs Union of India & Ors etc. by this Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal. However, only those persons who have entered into litigation have only been paid the wages @ Rs 292 per day and not the applicant. The respondent-department floated a Scheme to 4 regularize the casual employees who have served for 10 years or more, in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi and keeping in view the ratio of the judgment, cases of casual employees working for 10 years or more were processed for regularisation. Ministry of Personnel, Govt. of India issued an Office Memorandum dated 11.12.2006 to regularize the daily wagers completing 10 years continuous service on 10.04.2006 and in pursuant to the OM, respondents constituted a Committee at Jaipur Head Quarter (Annex. A/3). The name of the applicant was also considered since he fulfilled the requisite eligibility conditions of regularization. The applicant was not informed about the same despite the fact that he submitted representations in the matter. He inquired from the concerned officials of the 3rd respondent and was told that the matter of regularisation was under consideration and the requisite records have been called by the 3rd respondent for verification by a Committee constituted for the purpose. A review Committee was also said to have been constituted in the matter, subsequently. The applicant obtained the report of the committee constituted for regularisation of daily wagers vide letter dated 15.03.2013 under RTI Act, 2005 (Annex. A/1). The name of the applicant has been included in the list of eligible candidates but his case has been turned down with the observation that "The DDO's cash book was produced from Sep 5 95 to Aug 99, Apr 2001 to till date. On perusal of the cash book, it was seen that the payment upto July 96 and Feb 97 to Oct 97, Jan and Feb 98 and Apr 99 to Nov 2001 have not been made. Thus there is no continuity of payments as per records." The controlling authority of the applicant had certified that the applicant has continuously worked as Daily Wager ever since his appointment and the committee is inferring interruption in his service on the basis of entries in the cash book. The cash book is not an attendance register. Cash book contains only the total payment made to the individuals and that too even there is no mention of the months for which the particular payment is made. This fact is evident from extract of some pages from cash book even for the period which is included as non-working by the committee (Annex. A/4). Three months payment for the months of April, May and June, 2001 was made vide S.No. 21, 22 and 23 respectively. Similarly payment of Rs 1,320/- was made vide S.No. 81 on 06.09.2001 but it is not indicated as to for which month it was. The applicant got a copy of some of the FAC Bill duly verified and same relates to the so-called interruption period for the months of Feb, 97, March, 97 and Sept, 97 (Annex. A/5). Such bills are prepared by the individuals every month and the payments are made after verification of actual working by their controlling authority. The bills are finally paid by the cashier. The complete records of working of the casual/daily wager are 6 kept/maintained by their controlling officer. The applicant submitted a detailed representation on 22.03.2013 (Annex. A/6) to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration of his case but the same was bruptly rejected vide letter dated 30.04.2013 (Annex. A/2) on the ground of non-verification of service and also by taking subsequent instructions which had no application on the actual date of eligibility, i.e. 10.04.2006 as the instruction being prospective only, i.e. from 18.01.2011. The respondents are in fact adamant in denying the due benefits of regularisation; rather deliberately flouting the judgment of the Apex Court. 3rd respondent verbally instructed the subordinate officers on 17.01.2012 to terminate the services of the applicant and other casual labour/workers. They were told not to come on duty from 18.01.2012. They were also told that the outsourcing of the work being done by them which was to be carried out through contractor as per the orders of 3rd respondent. Therefore, applicant filed an OA No. 119/2012 against his termination and also prayed for regularisation. The same came to be disposed of vide order dated 29.10.2012 and prayer of regularisation was abandoned and not examined on merits since the same was under
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs M/O Finance on 10 May, 2022

OA No. 343/2018 with MA No. 31/2019, OA No. 152/2019, OA No. 126/2019 & OA No. 372/2017 with MA No. 70/2019 Thus, the applicants state that as they do the same work as regular employees, they are entitled to get the benefits of the said OM. Respondents issued an order dated 09.07.2007 fixing amount of Rs. 164/- per day for casual workers. The same came to be revised to Rs. 222 and thereafter to Rs. 292/- w.e.f 01.07.2008, but the same was given w.e.f. 01.10.2010. Similarly situated persons filed OA No. 531/2011 (Abdul Kadir & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) before Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 14.08.2012 allowed the O.A. directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 292/- per day to casual workers w.e.f. 01.07.2008 with all consequential benefits and the said order of Tribunal was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 22.08.2013 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 49/2013 (UOI & Ors. vs. Abdul Kadir & Ors.) and the said issue is no more res integra.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs M/O Finance on 10 May, 2022

OA No. 343/2018 with MA No. 31/2019, OA No. 152/2019, OA No. 126/2019 & OA No. 372/2017 with MA No. 70/2019 Thus, the applicants state that as they do the same work as regular employees, they are entitled to get the benefits of the said OM. Respondents issued an order dated 09.07.2007 fixing amount of Rs. 164/- per day for casual workers. The same came to be revised to Rs. 222 and thereafter to Rs. 292/- w.e.f 01.07.2008, but the same was given w.e.f. 01.10.2010. Similarly situated persons filed OA No. 531/2011 (Abdul Kadir & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) before Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 14.08.2012 allowed the O.A. directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 292/- per day to casual workers w.e.f. 01.07.2008 with all consequential benefits and the said order of Tribunal was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 22.08.2013 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 49/2013 (UOI & Ors. vs. Abdul Kadir & Ors.) and the said issue is no more res integra.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deepak Goyal vs M/O Finance on 10 May, 2022

OA No. 343/2018 with MA No. 31/2019, OA No. 152/2019, OA No. 126/2019 & OA No. 372/2017 with MA No. 70/2019 Thus, the applicants state that as they do the same work as regular employees, they are entitled to get the benefits of the said OM. Respondents issued an order dated 09.07.2007 fixing amount of Rs. 164/- per day for casual workers. The same came to be revised to Rs. 222 and thereafter to Rs. 292/- w.e.f 01.07.2008, but the same was given w.e.f. 01.10.2010. Similarly situated persons filed OA No. 531/2011 (Abdul Kadir & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) before Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 14.08.2012 allowed the O.A. directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 292/- per day to casual workers w.e.f. 01.07.2008 with all consequential benefits and the said order of Tribunal was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 22.08.2013 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 49/2013 (UOI & Ors. vs. Abdul Kadir & Ors.) and the said issue is no more res integra.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deepak Goyal vs M/O Finance on 10 May, 2022

OA No. 343/2018 with MA No. 31/2019, OA No. 152/2019, OA No. 126/2019 & OA No. 372/2017 with MA No. 70/2019 Thus, the applicants state that as they do the same work as regular employees, they are entitled to get the benefits of the said OM. Respondents issued an order dated 09.07.2007 fixing amount of Rs. 164/- per day for casual workers. The same came to be revised to Rs. 222 and thereafter to Rs. 292/- w.e.f 01.07.2008, but the same was given w.e.f. 01.10.2010. Similarly situated persons filed OA No. 531/2011 (Abdul Kadir & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) before Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 14.08.2012 allowed the O.A. directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 292/- per day to casual workers w.e.f. 01.07.2008 with all consequential benefits and the said order of Tribunal was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 22.08.2013 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 49/2013 (UOI & Ors. vs. Abdul Kadir & Ors.) and the said issue is no more res integra.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikas Jain vs Income Tax Department on 10 May, 2022

OA No. 343/2018 with MA No. 31/2019, OA No. 152/2019, OA No. 126/2019 & OA No. 372/2017 with MA No. 70/2019 Thus, the applicants state that as they do the same work as regular employees, they are entitled to get the benefits of the said OM. Respondents issued an order dated 09.07.2007 fixing amount of Rs. 164/- per day for casual workers. The same came to be revised to Rs. 222 and thereafter to Rs. 292/- w.e.f 01.07.2008, but the same was given w.e.f. 01.10.2010. Similarly situated persons filed OA No. 531/2011 (Abdul Kadir & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) before Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 14.08.2012 allowed the O.A. directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 292/- per day to casual workers w.e.f. 01.07.2008 with all consequential benefits and the said order of Tribunal was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 22.08.2013 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 49/2013 (UOI & Ors. vs. Abdul Kadir & Ors.) and the said issue is no more res integra.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next