Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 911
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, NYAPATHY VIJAY, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Shaik Shabbir Ali – Respondents
Writ Petition No.7729 of 2021
Decided on : 30-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MALLAMPALLI SRINIVASCENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the cut-off date for temporary status under the Casual Labourers Scheme does not apply to multifunctional posts, allowing for regularization despite late appointment.
Headnote:
Employment - Casual Labourers - Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme - The court interpreted the provisions of the scheme, emphasizing the eligibility criteria for temporary status and regularization, ultimately supporting the Tribunal's decision to grant the applicant temporary status despite the cut-off date.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a casual Electrician since 1995, sought temporary status and regularization of services, which was denied by the respondents based on a cut-off date for eligibility under the Casual Labourers Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's long service and the nature of his work justified granting temporary status, despite the appointment being after the cut-off date, as the role was deemed multifunctional and necessary.
Issues: Whether the denial of temporary status based on the cut-off date was justified and if the Tribunal's order should be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cut-off date should not bar the applicant from receiving temporary status, given the nature of his work and the provisions allowing for multifunctional posts.
Result: The Writ Petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order for granting temporary status and regularization.
ORDER :
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay)
1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the Union of India questioning the Order dated 04.06.2020 passed in O.A.No.486 of 2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad directing the petitioners herein to consider grant of temporary status to the Respondent No.1 and thereafter regularize the services in the eligible cadre keeping in view the letter of the Postal Directorate dated 30.06.2014 and in accordance with law. The parties are described as described in the O.A for easy narration.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition is as follows:-
The applicant is qualified in S.S.C., passed the ITI (Electrician) and is fully qualified to be appointed as Electrician. The applicant had registered his name in the Employment Exchange, Vijayawada.
3. While so, the Respondent-Department had intended to fill up the post of contingent Electrician to work under the control of Respondent No.3. In that context, the Employment Exchange has sponsored the name of the applicant along with other candidates and the applicant was selected after due selection process and was appointed on 13.12.1995.
4. As per the appointment, the applicant was initially called upon to work for 6 hours every day in the office. The applicant was being paid proportionate salary based on minimum pay of Group ‘D’ by the respondents. Subsequently, the man hours of the applicant was increased to 7 hours, 7 ½ hours and 8 hours on different dates. The applicant was also granted ad hoc bonus from 2013 to 2018.
5. Though the applicant has been working as casual employee in the Department since 1995, his services were not being regularized and the applicant was not even granted temporary status as was granted to certain employees under the scheme of 1993. Therefore, the applicant filed O.A to declare the inaction of the respondents in not granting temporary status as illegal and consequently to grant the same and regularize the services with consequential benefits.
6. The respondents had filed their reply statement contending that the Government of India vide proceedings GOI, MF, OM No.49014/16/89-Esst.(C) dated 26.02.1990 had imposed a ban of engagement of casual workers for performing duties of Group ‘C’ post. Subsequently, vide Letter No.45-37/91-SPB dated 05.06.1991, the vacancies of casual labourers caused by their absorption in Group ‘D’ posts are not to be filled by recruiting fresh casual labourer. In effect, the appointment of fresh casual labourers was impermissible. It was further stated that the Union of India had formulated a scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme vide GOI, DOP Lr.No.45-95/87-SPB-I dated 12.04.1991. As per the scheme, the temporary status would be conferred on casual labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989 and who had rendered continuous service of at least one year during that year and must have been engaged for a period of 240 days for full 8 hours.
7. Subsequently, the scheme was extended to full time casual labourers recruited after 29.11.1989 and upto 01.09.1993 vide proceedings D.G. (P) Lr.No.66/52/92-SPB I dated 01.11.1995 to 08.11.1995. Thereafter, no extension was granted.
8. According to the respondents, the applicant was appointed as a part-time Electrician in the office of Respondent No.3 vide Letter No.ST-III/31-P/T Staff/95-96 dated 13.12.1995. In the said letter, it was mentioned that the engagement is on a temporary basis and the applicant is liable for termination without assigning any reason. It was specifically stated that the applicant was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor any selection process was undertaken before issuing appointment to the applicant. Since, the appointment of the applicant is not in consonance with the Rules, the question of grant of temporary status to the applicant would not arise.
9. It was further contended that in compliance with the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary,
