Union of India vs Gurmukh Singh

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The respondent No. 1 filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench pleading that against 35 sanctioned posts of Peons of the petitioners'' department (office of Comptroller and Auditor General), only 10 incumbents are working on casual basis, 18 on casual/daily wage basis, while 2 are working on regular basis. Five regularly sanctioned posts were stated to be lying vacant. The services of the daily wage basis employee Peons were terminated while retaining juniors or engaging fresh hands and, thus, the plea was that one daily wager ought not to be replaced by another daily wager when there was nothing against the work and conduct of the earlier daily wager, giving a complete go-bye to the well established principle of ''first come last go''. The petitioner claimed to have longest length of service amongst Peons working on daily wage basis without any complaint against his work and conduct and, thus, assailed the actions of the petitioners in disengaging his services by retaining his juniors or engaging fresh hands. The Tribunal, as an interim measure, by an order dated 1.12.2008 directed that respondent No. 1 should continue in service, in case his juniors have been retained till the next date of hearing.

The petitioners sought to deny any legal right of respondent No. 1 by alleging that a daily wager does not hold any post. It was pleaded that casual workers are engaged on seasonal requirement basis and cannot be entrusted with the job of a regular Group ''D'' employee.

The Tribunal opined, in terms of the impugned order dated 2.2.2009, that respondent No. 1 had been appointed as a casual worker on daily wage basis in the year 2004 i.e. 4 years prior to his approaching the Tribunal. He has put in more years of service than persons retained by the petitioners and since persons junior to the respondent No. 1 have been retained, it was not legal for the petitioners to ignore the principle of'' last come first go'' while dispensing with the services of the daily wager. A seniority list of daily wagers was directed to be prepared. The Tribunal also took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , while observing that the department might have framed some policy for regularisation of persons who are working for more than 10 years, if their appointment was not a back door entry and not irregular.

The Tribunal, in para-10, has observed that, "admittedly", respondent No. 1 was not appointed through a back door entry but appointed on casual basis after following due course of selection and, thus, the petitioners had to examine the issue of regularisation of daily wage workers/temporary employees after the decision in Umadevi''s case (supra). The operative directions are contained in para-11 as under:-

"11. In view of what has been discussed above, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to prepare a seniority list of all the casual workers on the basis of Muster Roll and thereafter consider the case of the applicant for regularization as per policy/instructions issued or Scheme framed by the respondents from time to time from due date when his junior was regularized if his case is found to be covered under these policies/instructions. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Respondents are further directed to allow the applicant to work as casual worker if his services are so required and his juniors are retained. No order as to costs".

A reading of the aforesaid directions shows that the following was required to be done by the petitioners:-

"i) preparation of a seniority list of all casual workers on the Muster Roll;

ii) consideration of the case of respondent No. 1 for regularisation, as per policy/instructions issued or Scheme framed by the petitioners before us from time to time;

iii) such regularisation would be based on the date when his juniors were regularised, if respondent No. 1 was found covered under any policy/instructions;

iv) action to be taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order; and

v) the petitioners to permit respondent No. 1 to work as casual worker, if his services are so required and his juniors retained."

It is in the context of the aforesaid directions that we posed a query to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to which direction can be said to be irregular or illegal and by which direction are the petitioners aggrieved. We were given no satisfactory answer, the reason for which is obvious that, really speaking, the petitioners can make no grievance in respect of any of these directions which are perfectly in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners did seek to contend before us that respondent No. 1 has subsequently been appointed as Multi Task Staff but that is a separate recruitment process under the Rules and has nothing to do with the impugned directions.

We are constrained to say that mindless petitions and appeals, especially by Government departments, in routine, is a complete waste of judicial time. Legal departments spend money in filing these petitions when, really speaking, there is no grievance. It is as if another certificate is required from the Court of dismissal. Such petitions, obviously, ought not to be filed and are contrary to the repeated professed policies of the Government saying unnecessary litigation should be discouraged. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we consider it necessary not only to dismiss the writ petition but to impose token costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioners to be paid to respondent No. 1, who has been compelled to defend this writ petition.