Back
2008 Supreme(Cal) 430
High Court Of Calcutta
K.J. Sengupta & Manik Mohan Sarkar, JJ.
Indian Council Of Agricultural Research - Appellants
Vs
Taramoni - Respondents
W.P.C.T. 503 of 2005
Decided on: Apr 23, 2008
Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Prabir Sengupta, A.Sarkar
Similarly situated employees cannot be discriminated against, and the denial of benefits to one set of employees who are similarly situated to another set of employees who have been granted benefits is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
REGULARIZATION - SIMILARLY SITUATED - APPLICABILITY OF RES JUDICATA - DISCRIMINATION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - APPLICABILITY OF UMA DEVI'S CASE - SCHEME FOR REGULARIZATION OF CASUAL EMPLOYEES - SCHEME FOR REGULARIZATION OF CASUAL WORKERS (GRANT OF TEMPORARY STATUS AND REGULARIZATION) SCHEME, GOVT. OF INDIA, 1993.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and its wing Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fabrics, challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that directed them to extend the benefits of an earlier judgment of the CAT to the respondents, who were similarly situated casual workers. The earlier judgment had directed the petitioners to regularize certain casual workers and grant them retiral benefits. The petitioners contended that the respondents were not similarly situated as the applicants in the earlier case and that the scheme for regularization of casual workers, issued in 1993, was not considered by the CAT in the earlier case. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that they were similarly situated and that the petitioners were estopped from raising the issue of the 1993 scheme as they had accepted the earlier judgment of the CAT.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the CAT had correctly found that the respondents were similarly situated as the applicants in the earlier case and that the petitioners were estopped from raising the issue of the 1993 scheme as they had accepted the earlier judgment of the CAT. The court further held that the petitioners could not discriminate between two sets of employees who were similarly situated and that the denial of benefits to the respondents was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case, which was relied upon by the petitioners, was not applicable as it dealt with the regularization of casual workers who were not recruited through the prescribed departmental selection committee, while in the present case, the respondents were similarly situated to the applicants in the earlier case who had been regularized.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents were similarly situated as the applicants in the earlier case. 2. Whether the petitioners were estopped from raising the issue of the 1993 scheme. 3. Whether the petitioners could discriminate between two sets of employees who were similarly situated. 4. Whether the denial of benefits to the respondents was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case was applicable to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The finding of the CAT that the respondents were similarly situated as the applicants in the earlier case was based on an assessment of the relevant materials on record and cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners were estopped from raising the issue of the 1993 scheme as they had accepted the earlier judgment of the CAT, which had directed the regularization of certain casual workers and grant of retiral benefits without considering the 1993 scheme. 3. The petitioners could not discriminate between two sets of employees who were similarly situated, as this would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. The denial of benefits to the respondents was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it resulted in discrimination between two sets of employees who were similarly situated. 5. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case was not applicable to the present case as it dealt with the regularization of casual workers who were not recruited through the prescribed departmental selection committee, while in the present case, the respondents were similarly situated to the applicants in the earlier case who had been regularized.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed and the order of the CAT was upheld.
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.
1. I have gone through the draft judgment and order prepared by my learned Brother, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar, with respect I am unable to agree to His Lordship's conclusion. The reasons of my different conclusion is given hereunder.
2. THE respondents, before this Court who' were successful before the learned Tribunal approached with their grievance that they and/or their predecessor- in-interest were similarly placed and circumstanced with those of the applicants of OA 343 of 1995 (Sambhu II and 32 Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.). They were and/or are working under the applicants and they should be given the same benefit as has been given by the applicants (respondent before the learned Tribunal) in terms of the judgment, and order of the learned Tribunal dated 31st January 1996 passed in the said original application, 343 of 1995. THE respondents were successful to pursue the learned Tribunal that they have been working as casual labour under the respondents and were categorized as daily rated workers like the applicants of OA 343 of 1995. THEy had been discharging same nature of duty as performed by the regular employees of full time post for 25 and 30 years. Those applicants who retired from services from respective dates as have been indicated in their application. Unfortunately on retirement no terminal benefit was granted as has been granted to other workers who filed earlier application. Some of the respondents herein are the widows and having interest in the service benefit of their deceased husband. THE learned Tribunal on fact came to finding that earlier judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31st January 1996 reached its finality as no appeal was preferred therefrom rather review application filed as against the same was dismissed. Subsequently the said judgment and order was implemented carrying out direction given therein. On the aforesaid factual position only question remaining before the learned Tribunal was whether the respondents before us were similarly placed and circumstanced with the applicants in the earlier matter or not and whether they should be given benefit of the said judgment and order. THE learned Tribunal on fact found that the respondents before us also stand on the similar footing with that of the applicants of the earlier application as they were deprived of the similar benefits. In the application before us there is no challenge against the aforesaid finding of the similarity. We can not upset fact finding of the learned Tribunal in exercise of power of judicial review in absence of allegation of perverse fact finding. Before the learned Tribunal stand taken by the petitioner before us that the respondents were not similarly placed and such contention has been overruled. Further stand taken before the learned Tribunal that the respondents herein are governed by the Circular being No. 51015 dated 10th September 1993. It is contended that the said Circular was not placed before the learned Tribunal previously in earlier application. I find such contention is incorrect factually as the review application was filed and placing and relying on aforesaid document and the learned Tribunal while dealing with the review application considered the said Circular and found the same was not helpful to the case of the applicants. Hence the sheet anchor of the contention of the petitioners was not accepted and negatively decided earlier. I think the same cannot be agitated before us as the same is hit by the principle of res judicata. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Counsel, contends that no appointment either regularization or otherwise can be made deviating from the rules and scheme and in support of his contention he has relied on large number of decisions of Supreme Court. I think the proposition laid down in those cases are not disputed but here the issue is whether the respondent- before us stand on similar footing with those who
