Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 1234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NARESH H.PATIL and RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ.
Ashok Namdeo Sangale - Petitioner
V/s.
The Union of India - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 10096 OF 2010
Decided On: 25TH JUNE, 2014
Advocate Appeared:
Mr.Rahul G. Walia, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr.Sachindra B. Shetye, for Respondent UOI.
Completion of 240 days in continuous employment is necessary for entitlement to temporary status and regularization under the Casual Labourers Scheme.
Headnote:
Termination - Central Administrative Tribunal - Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 - 10/09/1993 - completion of 240 days - regularization - delay in filing petition - continuous employment - temporary status - permanent establishment - completion of 240 days - artificial breaks in service - continued employment for long spells - completion of 240 days - temporary status - regularization - delay in filing petition - continuous employment - temporary status - permanent establishment - completion of 240 days - artificial breaks in service - continued employment for long spells - completion of 240 days - temporary status - regularization
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was orally appointed as a sweeper with the respondent No.2 Department and was terminated on 30/08/2001. The petitioner challenged the termination by filing OA No. 663 of 2001 seeking quashing of the termination order and reinstatement in service. The OA was dismissed, and the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the judgment after seven years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days in continuous employment with the respondents and that the delay in filing the petition was unreasonable. The court also noted that the petitioner's job of sweeping was of a casual nature and did not entitle him to be brought on the permanent establishment.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's entitlement to regularization under the Casual Labourers Scheme, the delay in filing the petition, and the nature of the petitioner's employment as a sweeper.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that completion of 240 days in continuous employment was necessary for entitlement to temporary status and regularization. It also emphasized that artificial breaks in service aimed at depriving an employee of the benefits of continued service need to be ignored. The court further ruled that continued employment for long spells entitles an employee for permanency.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and lack of merit, with no order as to costs.
Per Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.
01. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
02. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 02/11/2013 delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application No.663 of 2001.
03. The learned advocate for the petitioner-Shri.Rahul G. Walia submits that the petitioner was orally appointed as a sweeper with the respondent No.2 Department viz. Dy.Commissioner, Central Excise Pune - VII & IV Division, having his Office At - ICE House, 1st Floor 41-A, Sasoon Road, Pune - 411 001. It is claimed that the petitioner has been continuously working w.e.f. 01/01/1993 till the date of his oral termination dated 30/08/2001. A categorical statement is made in Paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner served continuously from the date of his oral appointment as sweeper in the said department and completed more than 240 days of service. The petitioner was orally terminated on 30/08/2001.
04. The petitioner challenged his oral termination by filing OA No. 663 of 2001. The petitioner was applicant No.4 in the said O.A. along with Sanjay Arjun Patil, Mrs.Lata Rajendra Shah and Mr.Bhagwan Shalik Patil. The said O.A. was filed on 13/09/2001.
05. The petitioner has set out the following prayers in the said original application :
a) The Hon'ble Tribunal pleased to quashed and set aside the termination order dated 30/02/2001 so far Applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned and be pleased to allow the Applicant No.4 to render his services on the post which he was holding until a regularly qualified candidate is made available from regular recruiting agency.
b) The Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to regularize the services of the Applicants on the post of the sweeper.
c) Any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
d) Cost of this Original Application be provided for.
e) Joint Original Application be allowed to be filed.
06. By the aforesaid prayers (termination order should be read as 30/08/2001 instead of 30/02/2001 wrongly set out in prayer clause (a)), the petitioner sought the quashing and setting aside of his oral termination dated 30/08/2001 and sought reinstatement in service until a regularly qualified candidate is made available. It was also prayed that the petitioner be regularized in service on the post of sweeper.
07. It is submitted that after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 28/11/2003, the Original Application No. 663 of 2003 was dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment by filing this petition on 19/11/2010 which is seven years after the O.A. was dismissed. The remaining three applicants who were in the O.A. along with present petitioner, have not challenged the said judgment as per the knowledge of the petitioner.
08. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2-Department by office memorandum dated 10/09/1993 has floated a scheme titled as, 'Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993. The said scheme was brought into force w.e.f. 01/09/1993. The salient features of the said scheme and which are germane to the case on hand are as follows:
2. This scheme will come into force w.e.f. 1-9-1993.
3. This scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries/Department of Govt. of India and their attached and subordinate officer, on the date of issue of these orders. But it shall not be applicable to casual workers in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and Deptt. of Posts who already have their own schemes.
4. Temporary status :-
i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this O.H. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year which means that they must have been engaged for a
