AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. S. Mahra Member (J)
The applicant was initially engaged as a casual labourer on 01.07.1995 by the Additional Assistant Director, Estates, Srinagar. The applicant continued as a casual labourer on the master roll up to 31.05.1996, thereby rendering a total of 11 months of service. The applicant was paid wages only for the said period.
The respondent department issued Government Order dated 09.08.1996, annexed as Annexure A, whereby daily wagers deployed on election duty in the Valley during the forthcoming State Assembly Elections were to be granted an incentive in the form of regularization, subject to certain conditions. The said order reads as follows:
“Daily Wagers engaged in Government service, who had not completed the prescribed seven years of daily wage service for regularization as on 31.03.1996, and who had satisfactorily performed election duty in the Valley, would be considered for regularization in relaxation of the condition of 7 years of service after completing only two years of such service.”
The said order provided that a daily wager who had not completed the prescribed seven years of service as on 31.03.1996, but who performed election duty satisfactorily, would be considered for regularization after completion of only two years of service, in relaxation of the seven-year requirement.
The applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of SWP No. 101/2018. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 12.12.2019, whereby the respondents were directed as under:
“while I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his services in terms of Government order dated 9 of August, 1996, yet' I would like the respondents to consider giving relaxation to the petitioner and regularize his services as one time exception, if the same is permissible in law.”
In pursuance of the aforesaid directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents passed a rejection order dated 20.10.2020, thereby declining regularization of the applicant's services. The applicant has now challenged the said rejection order by way of the present OA before this Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had voluntarily participated in election duty during the year 1996 and is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of regularization in terms of Government Order dated 09.08.1996. However, his claim for such benefit was not considered by the respondents.
On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant did not fulfill the requirement of having completed two years of daily wage service as on 31.03.1996. He had served for only 11 months with the department and hence was not eligible under the terms of the incentive scheme. He further contended that the applicant was not on the rolls of the department at the time he performed election duty and thus could not claim the benefit of the said circular.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
It is a matter of record that the applicant was engaged as a casual labourer on 01.07.1995 and worked only till 31.05.1996, a period of 11 months. It is also on record that the applicant undertook election duty voluntarily after his services were discontinued by the respondent department. The Government Order dated 09.08.1996 provides that daily wagers who were on the rolls of the department and had completed two years of service as on 31.03.1996, and who had satisfactorily performed election duty, would be considered for regularization in relaxation of the seven-year condition. Therefore, the essential prerequisites were, the worker must have been on the rolls of the department when performing election duty, and the worker must have completed two years of service as on 31.03.1996.
In the present case, the applicant had worked for only 11 months and was not on the rolls at the time he performed election duty. Therefore, he does not satisfy either of the essential conditions for claiming benefit under the Government Order dated 09.08.1996.
In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for regularization under the said circular. Consequently, the rejection order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the respondent department is found to be legally valid and sustainable.
Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.