Sovinder And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)

It is submitted in the O.A. that the applicants were engaged by the respondents as casual labourers, after completion of all the required formalities, in different years from 1990 to 1997.

Respondents issued order dated 26.07.2000, inter alia, asking the particulars of the skilled/unskilled casual workers engaged during the last two years. Accordingly, respondents No.1 to 3 collected the details of skilled/unskilled casual workers engaged during the last 02 years for further action. When no result of such exercise was received, the applicants represented to respondents No. 1 to 3 requesting for regularizing their services. The representation dated 28.08.2000 was followed by reminder dated 10.09.2000, but to no avail.

Left with no option, the applicants along with other similarly placed persons, approached this Tribunal by filing OA-2357/2000, which was disposed of on 14.11.2000 with the following directions:-

"2. Accordingly, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, at the admission stage itself, to consider the claim of the applicants in accordance with the aforesaid DOPT Scheme and to confer temporary status on such of them as are found to have fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Scheme. Those found eligible will be granted all the consequential benefits also. The respondents will pass a speaking and a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

When the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal, the applicants filed a Contempt Petition No. 138/2001 in OA-2357/2000, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 26.07.2001 with the following directions:-

"3.....the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the claim of the applicants for accord of temporary status in accordance with DOP&T Scheme dated 10.9.1993 as well as various pronouncements of the Courts on the subject and to pass a speaking and a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the respondent No. 3 (Shri R.K. Sharma, Director of Science (ASI) Archeological Survey of India Janpath, New Delhi) should be present in the Court. The respondents are also directed to apprise us by filing their compliance affidavit."

Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 17.10.2001 rejected the claim of the applicants.

Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants again filed OA-2980/2001. The applicants were taken back in service during the pendency of this OA, hence, this O.A. was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal on 04.07.2002.

The applicants state that they had been working with the respondents since their initial engagement with artificial breaks but their case was not considered properly and request for regularization was rejected illegally. Hence, the applicants were again forced to approach this Tribunal in OA-2767/2002, which was disposed of on 18.02.2003 with the following directions:-

"4. The grievance of the applicants in the present OA is that despite having worked 206 days in two consecutive years they are yet to be regularized in terms of DOPT"s Scheme of 1988 and as per OM dated 26.10.1984. However, no representation has been made by them to respondents seeking regularization under 1988 Scheme.

In view of the above circumstances, ends of justice would be met if the present OA is treated as representation of applicants and respondents are directed to consider the request of applicants for regularization under 1988 Scheme of DOP&T by a detailed and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

When the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid directions, the applicants again filed MA-1231/2003 in OA-2767/2002 seeking execution of the Tribunal"s order dated 18.02.2003.  This M.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal on 28.07.2003. However, the respondents again rejected the claim of the applicants vide an order dated 22.10.2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants along with other similarly placed persons again filed OA-2992/2003 before this Tribunal, which was dismissed on 03.03.2005.

The applicants have submitted that as per the information obtained through the RTI Act, it is apparent vide letter dated 16.08.2012 that the respondents No. 1 to 4 were in the process of considering their regularization. However, due to mala fide reasons, respondent No.4 disengaged the applicants w.e.f. 01.07.2014 and retained their juniors and even engaged fresh casual workers. Thus, the applicants have no option but to again approach the Tribunal in the current O.A. seeking the following relief:-

"(i) Call for the relevant records of the respondents, i.e., engagement of the applicants and similarly placed persons, the disengagement of the applicants herein, action taken on or the file dealing with the complaint of the applicants against the respondent No.4 and also file relating to engagement of the substitutes of the applicants after their disengagement.

(ii) Declare the abrupt disengagement of the applicants from employment under the respondents No.1 to 3, in spite of the fact that the respondents No.1 to 3 are having he work available against which the applicants herein were working for 17 to 24 years long period and the respondents have not only been continuing the juniors but have also engaged freshers in place of these applicants, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and colourable exercise of powers vested in the respondents.

(iii) Declare that the applicants are entitled for their engagement in preference to juniors and freshers and for consideration for regularization against regular Group "D" post(s) with all consequential benefits.

(iv) Order exemplary cost against the respondents and in favour of the Applicants.

(v) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."

The applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(i) State  of  Jharkhan  &  Ors.  Vs.  Kamal  Prasad  &  Ors., 2014(7)SCC 223.

(ii) S.K. Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 197 DLT (CN) 7 (DB).

(iii) Lalit Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors., (OA-1398/2015) decided by Principal Bench of CAT on 25.08.2015.

(iv) Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., (OA-4088/2012) decided by Principal Bench of CAT on 06.08.2015.

(v) Praveen Khan Vs. GNCTD & Ors., (OA-1184/2009) decided by Principal Bench of CAT on 25.03.2010.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel of the applicant, Shri R.N.Singh vociferously argued that the respondents have given best years of their life to the respondents who have acted arbitrarily by removing the applicants summarily in preference over their juniors. He also drew our attention to complaint of the applicants against respondent no.4 who, he alleged, acted in a biased manner towards the applicants by disengaging their services w.e.f. 01.07.2014 due to some ulterior motives.

The learned counsel laboriously took the Bench through the compendium of citations prepared by him to drive home his point. Amongst others, Shri R.N.Singh relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1992 (4) SLR 770 wherein it has been held that:-

"Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority."

He submitted that in OA-1184/2009, on 25.03.2010 Full Bench of the Principal Bench of this Central Administrative Tribunal has taken cognizance of the judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in Dr. A.K. Jain & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., 1987(Supp) SCC 497 wherein it was held that:-

"No ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officer who may be working in the Railways shall be replaced by any newly appointed AMO/ADMO on ad hoc basis. Whenever there is need for the appointment of any AMO/ADMO on ad hoc basis in any zone the existing ad hoc AMO/ADMOs who are likely to be replaced by regularly appointed candidates shall be given preference."

In the said order, the Tribunal held that contractual employees should not be replaced by another set of contractual employees except if the employees are not working satisfactorily. In view of the same, he averred that the grave injustice meted out to the applicants needs to be rectified by way of intervention of the Tribunal.

Rebutting these averments strongly, the learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Rajeev Kumar argued that the applicants" case is on a very weak legal footing since they were only employed as casual labourers and that too intermittently, with breaks. The applicants were merely engaged on various projects for jobs involving chemical treatment and preservation etc. undertaken by the Archeological Survey of India. By very nature of its job, the work is temporary and bestows no right on the employees, so engaged, to claim benefits like regularization, which can only be claimed by employees appointed on regular basis. He argued that the applicants worked (under the guidance and supervision of the officials of ASI), on need basis and that there is no availability of Group-D posts for such type of casual assignments.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and arguments advanced by both sides.

It is settled law that casual labourers have no vested right to claim continuance of their service, beyond the stipulated period for which their services were hired. The applicants were working with the respondents on casual basis and had no reason to assume that their service will be regularized. The respondents contend that the engagement of these workers was "project wise". A casual labour can be regularized only after due process of selection/screening is carried out by the respondent department as per their administrative requirements. Mere long service as casual labour cannot be a ground for claiming regularization.

Though the applicants have no indefeasible right in demanding continuance of their employment, the fact remains that the applicants have worked with the respondents for a considerable length of time (reportedly, commencing from 03 to 17 years). If they are otherwise suitable, their candidature for casual employment, deserves favourable consideration if their eligibility is not questionable . Here we are inclined to rely on the observations made by the Tribunal in OA-1398/2015 in the case of "Lalit Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.", 2015 SCC online CAT 523 that:-

"Even though the applicant is not entitled to seek reservation in the matter of appointment to a post on contract basis or renewal of contract, regularization in the post etc., other things remaining the same, there is also nothing wrong in giving preference to such employees"

We direct the respondents to consider the applicants for casual or ad hoc appointment, as and when such an eventuality arises, if they are otherwise found suitable for the work for which such appointments are made, in future, as per law.

16 . The O.A. is disposed of with these limited directions. No costs.