Nageshwar Yadav and Others vs Damodar Vally Corporation and Others

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at this

stage itself.

The petitioners moved this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 3683 of 1999 (R) praying for direction to the respondent D.V.C. to regularize the

services of the petitioners, who were working as casual/daily wage workers. The said writ petition was disposed of by order-dated 01.05.2001

contained in Annexure-9 to this writ petition by which liberty was given to the petitioners to move the authorities concerned individually for regular

appointment showing the details of their engagement with relevant evidence in their respective representation(s).

Thereafter the petitioners represented the matter before the authorities of the D.V.C. and by term of the order contained in Annexures-11 series

to this writ petition elated 21.5.2002 the same has been rejected by passing the following order:

Having worked longer period at other Project. -Not eligible.

This order rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for their regularization has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ application. According

to the petitioners, the respondents Corporation has illegally reduced the number of days worked, as claimed by the petitioners on the ground that

they worked longer period at other project and, as such, they are not eligible. The number of days of the petitioners worked at T.S.C. Division III

has been illegally deducted from the total number of days, though T.S.C. Division III is also under the respondents-Corporation.

It is said that the petitioners have been discriminated from that of other persons whose names have been either enlisted in the panel and their

services have been regularized, inasmuch as, while calculating their number of total man days, the number of days worked at T.S.C. Division III

has been taken into account, but in the case of the petitioners, the total number of days worked at T.S.C. Division III has not been taken into

account. The names of those persons, who also worked at other project, but in their cases the number of days worked at different projects has not

been deducted and they have been in the panel. Those persons are stated to be (1) Pradeep Kumar, (2) Ashok Kumar, (3) Harikishan Yadav, (4)

Ghanshyam Prajapati, (5) Shankar Uraon and (6) Braj Kishore Singh. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, the petitioners have given details of

number of days worked as casual workers under the Corporation.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation, wherein in paragraph 6, it is stated that as per the extent orders of the

Corporation a person can be eligible for being empanelled in a list of a particular station only if he has worked at that station and has rendered

minimum service of 240/180 days. It is further stated that when there was labour unrest in the D.V.C. in the years 1985, then at that time the

Management and the representative of the Labours after having discussion agreed that for the purpose of preparation of casual labour panel at

BTPS;

Person who have worked at more than one station or establishment shall be empanelled on the panel of the Bokaro Power Station only if he has

worked for the maximum Nos. of days at BTPS subject to the other criterias as Lald down by DVC.

The work performed by a person, as casual labour at Switchyard of BTPS shall be treated at par with the work done at/for the power station

(BTPS).

Regarding a person who has worked on diversion of transmission line originating from BTPS ''A'' Plant he shall be empanelled at the Bokaro

Power Station only, if his Controlling Engineer was posted at BTPS subject to criteria-(1) above and that he had worked at BTPS switchyard

also.

It is submitted that in view of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, the petitioners were not found to have worked for the maximum Nos. of days

at BTPS and, therefore, they have not fulfilled the criteria as Lald down by the D.V.C. for regularization of their services.

The submissions of Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the D.V.C. that the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria, as they were not

found to have worked for the maximum number of days at BTPS, cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that from perusal of appendix to

Annexure-11 to the writ petition i.e. the impugned rejection order, it appears that the petitioners worked for maximum period at BTPS. Though

other grounds have been stated in the counter affidavit for rejection of the representation of the petitioners, but as it appears from Annexure-11 to

the writ petition that only one ground has been mentioned therein that the petitioners have worked maximum Nos. of days at other project.

From perusal of the details of the petitioners mentioned in paragraph 17 of the writ petition it appears that the respondents-Corporation without

application of mind has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they worked for longer period at other project and, therefore, they

are not eligible. The respondent -Corporation appears to have not scrutinized each and individual case of the petitioners on the basis of their claim

as well as the Scheme of the Corporation for regularization of the services of casual workers as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application as

well as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners requires reconsideration.

Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 21st May 2002 as contained in Annexures-11 series are hereby

quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respond Corporation to consider the individual cases of the petitioners strictly in the light of the

Scheme framed by the Corporation contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and/or any other Scheme,

which has been subsequently framed by the Corporation. Such decision shall be taken by the respondent-Corporation within a period of three

months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application stands disposed of.