Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA - Petitioner
Versus
MUNNI LAL & ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 5564 of 2002
Decided on : 09-02-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. O.P. Kalshian, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Casual Labourers Scheme of 1993 required casual laborers to have been in employment on the date of the commencement of the Scheme and to have rendered continuous service of at least one year, meaning they should have been engaged for at least 240 days in a year.
Headnote:
Temporary Status - Employment Dispute - Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 - [Scheme of 1993, Supreme Court decisions] - The court discussed the Casual Labourers Scheme of 1993 and its interpretation by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that temporary status should have been granted to casual laborers who were in employment on the date of the commencement of the Scheme and had rendered continuous service of at least one year, meaning they should have been engaged for at least 240 days in a year.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, casual laborers, sought temporary status and one paid holiday based on completion of requisite days of service. The Tribunal allowed their application, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had not completed the requisite days of service prior to the implementation of the Scheme of 1993, and the Tribunal's order granting temporary status was not sustainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents were entitled to temporary status and a paid holiday under the Casual Labourers Scheme of 1993.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Scheme of 1993 required casual laborers to have been in employment on the date of the commencement of the Scheme and to have rendered continuous service of at least one year, meaning they should have been engaged for at least 240 days in a year.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Tribunal's order granting temporary status to the respondents.
1. Rule D.B. was issued in this matter on 03.09.2002.
2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 01.05.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the “Tribunal”), by which the application, O.A. No. 1806/2001, has been allowed.
3. Five applicants/respondents herein had approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for being conferred temporary status from the dates on which they completed 240/206 days in a year and grant of one paid holiday on completion of six days” continuous work in accordance with the OM dated 07.06.1988.
4. The respondents claimed to be working as Casual Labourers with the petitioner having joined on various dates between 1984 to 1993. All the applicants claimed to have completed the requisite period of 206/240 days of service in an year. Denial of grant of temporary status led to the filing of the OA which was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 01.05.2002, which has led to the filing of the present petition.
5. Ms. Bidawat, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the entire case of the applicant before the Tribunal was based on a Scheme which came into force on 01.09.1993. However, as per para 4 of the scheme, temporary status is to be conferred on all casual workers who are in employment on the date of the issue of the Scheme and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means, that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in case of offices observing five days” week). The counsel contends that in the present case, prior to 1993 the respondents had not completed the requisite 240 days and thus, they could not have been granted benefit of the scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 4.4 of the O.A., copy of which was handed over in Court to show that admittedly, it is the case of the applicants that they had completed more than 206/240 days in the year 1999-2000 which was after the scheme. She submits that the scheme was not an on-going scheme as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. Mohan Pal etc. etc., 2002 (2) ATJ 215: (2002) 4 SCC 573 and Union of India v. Gagan Kumar, (2005) 6 SCC 70. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to an OM dated 26.02.2016, which we shall deal with later.
6. While learned counsel for the respondent is unable to dispute that the Supreme Court has held that the scheme of 1993 is not an on-going scheme and the applicant had not completed 206/240 days on the date of the scheme; but strong reliance is placed on para 44 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) Scale 197. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly urged before this Court that the persons have been working continuously since 1984-93 onwards and their appointments were not illegal, but may have been irregular and thus, cannot be deprived of granting the temporary Grade “D” post.
7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to be considered as Grade “D” post, the employee first is to be given the temporary status which has not happened in this case.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Upon going through the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal had treated the Scheme of 1993 to be an on-going scheme as the respondents have been granted temporary status on the basis of completion of the requisite period in the year 2000-2001.
9. The Scheme in question, titled Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, came into effect on 01.09.1993 and inter alia granted “temporary status” to casual labourers upon rendering of service of at least one year, meaning whereby that t
