IMPORTANT POINT
Regularisation in service – Undue discrimination between two similarly situated employees is not sustainable.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 5th April, 2018 passed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 5115 of 2018 preferred by the appellant and affirming the order dated 29th June, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAT’), rejecting the Original Application No. 50 of 2012 preferred by the appellant with a prayer that the respondents be directed to regularise her services in the Group ‘D’ post.

4. As per admitted facts obtaining from record, the appellant was engaged as a ‘water woman’ in the office of respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Post Offices, Kutch Division, Bhuj, in February, 1986. Another lady namely, Smt. K.M. Vaghela joined services in the same office as a ‘Safai Karamchari’ in the year 1991. Indisputably, the appellant as well as Smt. Vaghela were both performing duties as contingency workers. Having continuously served in the Posts and Telegraphs Department for more than sixteen years, the appellant submitted a representation dated 27th January, 2003 to the concerned authorities, requesting to consider her case for regularization and to grant her a temporary status in the Group ‘D’ cadre in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 122. The departmental authority communicated the rejection of the said representation to the appellant vide letter dated 31st January, 2023 upon which the appellant approached the CAT by filing Original Application No. 530 of 2003, seeking a direction upon the respondents to regularise the appellant in the Group ‘D’ post with consequential benefits. The CAT disposed of the Original Application No. 530 of 2003 vide order dated 20th October, 2004, directing the respondent-authorities to consider the appellant’s case for conversion to a full time employee in terms of the circular issued in the year 1992 within a period of three months. The circular dated 16th September, 1992 provided a scheme for regularisation of the part-time labourers as ‘full time’, with a stipulation that if part-time casual labourers are working for five hours or more, it may be examined as to whether they can be made full-time by readjustment or a combination of duties. However, there should be no engagement of fresh casual labourers.

5. Pursuant to the CAT’s order, the appellant filed a representation to the concerned authorities. However, the authorities rejected the representation vide communication dated 29th December, 2004, observing that the appellant was a contingency paid part-time ‘water woman’ doing four hours of work each day. She was being paid Rs.1796/- per month as a contingency allowance calculated on the basis of the number of working hours and thus, she was not entitled to any benefit under the scheme/circular. It was further observed that neither the 1999 scheme, which was applicable to the Department of Telecommunication, nor the 1984 circular, applied to the appellant, and that there were no rules or instructions pertaining to the Posts and Telegraph Department covering her case.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication, the appellant preferred Special Civil Application No. 9398 of 2005 in the High Court which, however, was withdrawn with a liberty to challenge the communication dated 29th December, 2004 before the CAT. Accordingly, the appellant filed a fresh Original Application No. 50 of 2012 before the CAT, seeking the relief of grant of temporary status and absorption in terms of the scheme framed pursuant to the judgment of this Court in the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour(supra). The CAT rejected the Original Application filed by the appellant vide judgment dated 29th June, 2016. The appellant then filed a Review Application No. 11 of 2005 before the CAT, which too came to be rejected by CAT on the ground that the same was not maintainable.

7. Being