Back
1997(7) Supreme 65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From CAT, Ernakulam Bench, Kerala)
Sujata V. Manohar and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Union of India & Anr. -Appellants
versus
K.N. Sivadas & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 80-123 of 1996
With
Civil Appeal No. 5268/97 (@ SLP (C) No. 17422/95)
Civil Appeal Nos. 126/96, 124-25/96, 127-130/96 and 131/96
Decided on 1-8-1997
Counsels for the Parties:
For the Appearing Parties: P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate, C.V.S. Rao, Ms. Anubha Jain, Hemant Sharma, Ms. Anil Katiyar, (N. Sudhakaran) Advocate (NP), K.M.K. Nair, L.N. Rao, S.U.K. Sagar, K.V. Mohan, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, and Ms. Malini Poduval, Advocate.
Held : The scheme gives various benefits to casual labourers which are conferred with effect from 29.11.1989. A casual labourer, therefore, is not given under the scheme any benefits prior at 29.11.1989. Under the scheme temporary status is conferred on casual labourers if they fulfil the various conditions and requirements laid down in the scheme. Clause 7 provides that conferment of temporary status does not automatically imply that the casual labourers would be appointed as regular Group D employees within any fixed time frame. Appointment to Group D vacancies will continue to be done as per the extant recruitment rules, which stipulate preference to eligible ED employees. Therefore, various benefits which go with the conferment of temporary status were given to these casual labourers in view of the fact that their eventual absorption as regular employees was not to be within any fixed time and they were not automatically entitled to become regular employees. (Para 6)
The position of RTPs is quite different. In the first place, the very scheme which constituted RTPs provided for their absorption as regular employees. With this in mind, they were also given the same training as regular employees. They were required in the meantime, to carry out short-term duties or to handle peak hour traffic on an hourly wage basis. However, there was clear assurance in the scheme that they would be accommodated in future vacancies as regular employees in the manner set out in the scheme. We are informed that there was a backlog in absorption because of a ban on recruitment during certain years. All the RTP employees have been absorbed as regular employees by 1990. Some of the respondents who are before us have been absorbed much earlier, in the year 1988. Therefore, they are in a much better position than casual labourers and are now enjoying all the benefits of regular employment. Their claim relates to the period to 1988, or in the case of some of the respondents, prior to January 1990. The benefits which they claim are the benefits which have been conferred on casual labourers only after 29.11.1989. The respondents, however, are claiming these benefits for earlier periods (In respect of those respondents who were absorbed in January 1990, their continuation as RTPs after 29.11.1989 is only of two months duration). In other words, RTPs are claiming benefits for a period for which a similar benefit has not been conferred on casual labourers under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme. (Para 7)
(ii) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -Constitution of-India-Art. 136-Appeal against order of Administrative Tribunal-Non filing of an appeal before this Court by the State in similar matters, by itself cannot operate as a fetter for this Court in entertaining SLP subsequently filed even if considered relating to similar matters-Digambar s case : Relied on.
Held that non-filing of an appeal before this Court by the State in similar matters, by itself cannot operate as a fetter for this Court in entertaining special leave petitions subsequently filed even if they are considered as relating to similar matters when this Court finds that the relief which was granted was wrong; specially when there is every possibility that such relief may continue to be granted to other complainants who may go before that forum, which may ultimately result in a big financial loss to the State. There is substance in this submission because we find that the reliefs which were granted by the Tribunal are wholly unwarranted, looking to the service conditions of RTPs as compared to the service conditions of casual labourers. (Para 9)
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 17422 of 1995.
Applications for impleadment in C.A.Nos. 124-125/96 are allowed.
2. The respondents in these appeals were, at the material time, in the Reserved Trained Pool of Posts and Telegraphs Department, Government of India. After the bifurcation of the two departments in the year 1988 the respondents continued in the Reserved Trained Pool of their respective departments.
3. The Reserved Trained Pool was set up in October 1980. Under a circular bearing 60/36/80-SPB I dated 30 of October, 1980 issued by the office of the Director General, Indian Posts & Telegraphs Department, a scheme was framed for constitution of a standing pool of trained reserve candidates for Post and RMS offices. The circular set out that in many operative offices the smooth flow of work was hampered by shortage of staff due to absenteeism and other causes. Meeting this shortage with overtime arrangements was not always a satisfactory solution. Hence it was decided that a standing pool of trained reserve candidates (hereinafter referred to as RTPs ) should be formed in each recruiting unit to meet these short-time needs and recurrent needs. The scheme was made applicable to the cadres of Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants. As per existing practice, at the time of each recruitment, after the select list was drawn up, an additional list of candidates known as Part B or part II list was being prepared by each recruiting unit. The candidates in part B list were called up against drop-outs from the main list. They were imparted training only after they were brought to the main list. It was now proposed under the new scheme that after the main list is drawn up, a specific additional reserve list of candidates equal in number to 50% of the number of candidates in the main select list will be drawn up. The candidates in the reserve list will also be imparted training like the candidates in the main list. The candidates in the reserve list will constitute a standing pool of trained reserve. They will be absorbed in regular vacancies in their turn after the candidates in the main list are absorbed. Till then they will be used as short duty staff against vacancies due to absenteeism or any other reason. Besides, they will be used for handling peak hour work. Since the purpose of having them as short duty staff is to minimise staff shortages, they may be called for engagement depending upon their ready and easy availability on demand and not necessarily in the order of their position in the reserved list. Their eventual absorption, however, will be in the order of their merit. They may be employed according to needs but subject to a maximum of eight hours a day. They will be paid on hourly rates of wages. Clause 5 of the circular provides for the manner of absorption. It says that reserved candidates are recruited as a stand-by over and above the vacancies announced at the time of recruitment. The surplus recruited candidates will be given priority of absorption against vacancies for subsequent recruitment in the manner which is set out in that clause.
4. This scheme was in operation from the date of the circular till 4.3.1986 when the scheme was abolished. The initial creation of reserved pool was on the basis of 50% of the notified vacancies. In 1982, the percentage of reserved pool was reduced to 15% of the notified vacancies. The entire scheme was abolished with effect from 4.3.1986. The respondents in the appeals were recruited as RTPs. They have been since absorbed as regular employees on various dates from 1988 to January 1990 (with a few exceptions as hereinafter set out).
5. The respondents filed applications before different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming reliefs similar to those which were granted to casual labourers in their departments in view of a scheme framed for casual labourers in the year 1989 as per the directions given by this Court in Jagrit M
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
