Ambika Prasad Mansingh vs Union Of India & Others

Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J)

The applicant, claiming to have been working under the respondents as a Part Time Chowkidar since 2000, has filed this O.A. praying inter alia to quash the order under Annexure-A/10 and A/16 and direct the respondents to regularize him against the vacant post of any Group-D/MTS as per rules and judge-made laws. Annexure-A/10 dated 19.11.2012 and Annexure-A/16 dated 05.08.2016 are the orders of the competent authority wherein the representations submitted by the applicant seeking regularization were rejected. The stand of the applicant is that since he has been continuing as Part Time Chowkidar since 2000 and several vacancies in Group-D/MTS category are lying vacant in the department, he is entitled to be regularized.

Respondents opposed the prayer of the applicant and filed counter stating therein that the applicant was engaged as a Part Time Worker to perform the duty of Chowkidar at Divisional Office/HRO/RMS-K Div., Jharsuguda for five hours a day. He was not appointed through any process of recruitment by the competent authority by following due procedure of rules and he was paid wages to the extent duties rendered by him. By following the directives issued by the Head Office dated 19.11.2010 through letter date4d 29.11.2010, the existing practice of engaging casual labourers part time and full time as Waterman, Gardener, Watchman etc. or any misc. category has been dispensed with. The respondents have also denied the continuing engagement of the applicant as part time casual labourer under Respondent No.4 and the stand of the applicant that he had completed more than 16 years of service. It has also been stated that the applicant was never engaged against any sanctioned post nor his engagement was made through any employment exchange as submitted by the applicant. Therefore, by applying the law laid down in various cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court, appointment made without following due procedure/rule do not confer any right to claim regularization. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this O.>A.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that as the applicant has been continuing to discharge duties as a part time Chowkidar since 2000 and he having completed more than 20 years of service, is entitled to be regularized in any of the Group-D post lying vacant under the respondents. The applicant having crossed the maximum age limit for entry into any government job, at this stage, unless his case is sympathetically considered and regularized, he will be burden on the society and not only he himself but also his family will come to road. Hence, he has sincerely prayed for the relief claimed in this O.A. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents besides placing reliance on the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi, AIR 2006 SC 1806, it has been submitted that similar matter filed by similarly situated employee seeking regularization have already been dismissed by this Tribunal and, therefore, this O.A. is liable to be dismissed as the backdoor entry has already been discouraged by the Courts in every now and then.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant has fairly brought to the notice of this Tribunal one such decision of this Tribunal dated 19.03.2021 in OA 319/2016 (Umakanta Naik Vs. UOI & Ors.), which was dismissed by this Tribunal to substantiate that the said order cannot stand on the way of granting the relief to the applicant as the Tribunal dismissed this O.A. without taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sant Lal & Ors disposed of on 08.01.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 175-176 of 2019. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has reiterated the relief claimed in the O.A.

On perusal of the order of this Tribunal in the case of Umakanta Naik (supra), it is seen that the present case is akin to the case in hand both on facts and law and, this Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire facts, rules and law dismissed the prayer of the applicant therein for regularization. It is a fact that in the order, the decision in the case of Sant Lal and other (supra) of the Hon’ble Apex Court was not placed before the Bench and, therefore, did not form part of the order. However, on perusal of the said decision, it is seen that the fact of the said case is different and distinct to the present case as in the said case the applicant was appointed as Group-D worker on casual basis whereas in the present case, the applicant was appointed as part time casual worker for five hours a day. Thus, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied on by the applicant is of no help to him. Hence, this Tribunal do not find any different material to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Umakanta (supra). Hence, by applying the decision laid down by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Umakanta Naik (supra), this O.A. is liable to be dismissed and hence dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.