The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employment status under the Scheme of 1993 does not entitle casual laborers to pensionary benefits without undergoing a regular selection process for permanent establishment.

JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J.

Heard Mr. S Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P Borah, learned counsel appearing for respondents No: 3, 4 & 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, 21 in number challenging the order dated 03.11.2015 in Original Application No. 040/00308 of 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati.

3. The case projected by the petitioners before the CAT is that the petitioners No: 1 to 10 are retired workers and petitioners No: 11 to 21 are the wives of retired workers. The petitioners No: 1 to 10 and the husbands of the petitioners No: 11 to 21 were appointed as Casual Workers under the respondent No. 5, namely, Ramie Research Station, Sorbhog, which is under the jurisdiction and control of Indian Council of Agriculture (ICAR) and Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fibers (CRIJAF) respondents namely No: 2 and 3 herein. The petitioners claim to be regularised and given the status of “temporary status-casual labourer”. It is stated that they were paid Grade-IV scale of wages as paid to other regular Grade-IV workers. The petitioners also state that all benefits of Grade-IV employees have been given to them. However, after retirement although they were offered retiral benefits/legal dues, but they were not provided with the benefit of pension.

4. The grievances of the petitioners are that the respondent authorities have denied the grant of pension to the petitioners on the ground that they belonged to the category of “temporary status-casual labourer” and as such, they are not considered entitled for grant of pension like other regular Grade-IV employees.

5. The petitioners approached the respondents/higher authorities to consider their prayer for payment of pension, however same was rejected. It is the further case of the petitioners that groups of workers who were similarly situated and who were engaged at Barrack pore, West Bengal by the same authorities/management, had approached the Calcutta Bench of CAT with a prayer for direction to provide them benefits of pension and other retiral dues. The CAT, Calcutta Bench allowed the prayer of the petitioners therein and directed the respondents to provide pension and other retiral benefits at par with the regular Grade-IV employees. The Tribunal also directed the respondents to create appropriate number of posts for regularisation of the eligible applicants and/or their deceased predecessors-in-interest which would be co-terminus to the service and also to provide for all benefits to the eligible applicants.

6. The applicants being similarly situated approached the CAT, Guwahati Bench and sought for similar relief’s as granted by the Calcutta Bench of CAT. The CAT, Guwahati Bench by order dated 21.12.2012 disposed of the Original Applications filed by the petitioners directing the petitioners to submit one comprehensive representation before the respondent authorities within 3 (three) weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

7. In terms of the order passed by CAT, Guwahati Bench, the petitioners preferred a comprehensive representation before the respondent authorities by communication dated 04.04.2013. The respondent authority refused to consider the prayers of the petitioners towards grant of pensionary benefits. Being aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the inaction of the respondent authorities by approaching the CAT, Guwahati Bench for a second time by filing Original Application No. 040/00308 of 2014. The CAT, Guwahati by order dated 03.11.2015 dismissed the said Original Application refusing to accede to the prayers made by the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. –vs- Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. The petitioners have assailed the order of the CAT, Guwahati contending that the order of the C