Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Ranjit Phatak

R.K. Manisana, J.—This is an application for review of the order of this Court made on 8.4.92 in Civil Rule No. 493 of 1992 by which the Respondents therein were directed to regularise the service of the writ Petitioner as Mazdoor-cum-messenger within a period of two months from the date of that order and not to give effect to the order terminating the service of the writ Petitioner.

Mr. R.P. Kakoti. learned Central Government Standing Counsel, has submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the subject in dispute shall be governed by the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 (for short the "Act"). On a reading of Section 14 of the Act, it is evident that this Court shall have have no jurisdiction lithe writ Petitioner holds a civil post under the Union. Admittedly, the writ Petitioner is a daily rated casual employee. The question which, therefore, arises for consignation is whether a casual labourer holds a civil post under the Union. In State of Assam and Others Vs. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta, the Supreme Court has held that "a post is an employment, but every employment is not a post. A casual laboure is not the holder of a post." In that view of the matter, the writ Petitioner who is a casual laboure does not hold a civil post under the Union, There, Section 14 of the Act isa not attracted in the present case. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No costs.