By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

The applicant is aggrieved by his disengagement from service w.e.f.

09.12.2011 and seeking direction to the respondents to grant him temporary

status and thereafter consider for regularisation against the post of Multi

Tasking Staff with all consequential benefits.

2.

The applicant has made the following submission in his Original

Application:

2.1 He was appointed as Daily Wage Mazdoor vide order dated 16.04.1986

(Annexure A-2).

2.2 The services of the applicant were terminated by the respondent No.4 in

the year 1987 and the order of termination was challenged by the applicant

before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which has passed

the award on 19.08.1988 against the applicant. The order of the CGIT was

challenged by the applicant before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.

No.5403/1998 and the Writ Petition was decided on 21.07.2000 against the

applicant. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an LPA before the Hon’ble High

Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was registered as LPA No.8/2003 and the

Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court has disposed of the LPA vide order

Page 3 of 8

3

dated 10.09.2003 with the direction that whenever there is any vacancy, the

applicant shall be given work by the respondents, giving due weightage for his

service.

2.3 In pursuance to the directives of Hon’ble High Court dated 10.09.2003

passed in LPA No.8/2003, the respondent No.4 issued an order dated

13.01.2004 (Annexure A-4), whereby the Sub Record Officer, RMS, J.B.

Division Rewa was directed to engage the applicant as Daily Mazdoor. The

applicant submitted his joining on 20.01.2004 and was continuously working

since then.

2.4 On 10.03.2007, the office of Rewa RMS was closed and, as such, the

applicant was posted in the office of respondent No.5 on 06.08.2007 and he

worked in the office of respondent No.5 till 08.12.2011. However, the

applicant was not allowed to work thereafter and his services were terminated

by an oral order, without assigning any reason and without issuing any show

cause notice.

2.5 The applicant submits that the respondent Department has framed a

scheme, the relevant extracts of which have been filed as Annexure A-5 of the

O.A, for regularisation of casual labourers working in the Postal Department.

Page 4 of 8

4

Subsequently, the office of respondent No.1 has issued an instruction dated

27.01.2011 (Annexure A-1) for regularisation of casual labourers against the

post of MTS, who were engaged as Casual Labourers on or before 1.9.1993,

working for full hours i.e. 8 hours on the basis of selection-cum-seniority

basis.

2.6 It is the case of the applicant that he has working for eight hours/full time

in the respondent department from the date of his initial appointment to the

date of termination and, therefore, he was required to be considered as per the

instructions dated 27.01.2011. However, the respondents have not considered

the case of the applicant in terms of the aforesaid instructions nor allowed him

to participate in the selection process commenced in the year 2011.

2.7 The applicant has placed reliance on a decision of this Bench in O.A.252

of 1995 decided on 09.12.1996, in pursuance of which, 12 casual labourers

were given temporary status. Learned counsel for the applicant has also

supplied one copy of the order dated 12.07.2023 passed in OA Nos.200/197 &

200/198/2014 and averred that the present case is squarely covered by that

order and the applicant is also entitled for the same benefits, as has been

extended to the applicants therein.

Page 5 of 8

5

3.

In their reply, the respondents have stated that the applicant was initially

engaged as Daily Wage Mazdoor on temporary basis and it was clearly

mentioned in his engagement letter that work will be allotted to him in absence

of the regular Mailman only and the services of the applicant will be

terminated at any time without giving any information to the applicant. The

termination order of the applicant dated 05.07.198