The necessity to present proper representations to the relevant authority for service regularization is emphasized.

ORDER

Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)

The issue involved in both the above OAs are similar. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, both the OAs have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2 . The applicants in both the OAs are challenging the impugned communication dated 09/13th May, 2013 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide File No.C—30014/29/2013-V&L by which the outsourcing of services of direct deployment of casual workers have been prohibited.

3. The applicants in OA No.2214/2017 have submitted that they were appointed as causal labourers in Group ‘D’ category w.e.f. different dates of their appointment with the respondents Nos.6, 7, 8 & 9 in different capacities like Peon, Safai Karmachari, Night Watchman, Bell Duty, Cleaning and Sweeping, Form Stores after conducting the interview of each applicant. It has been submitted that all the applicants were enrolled with the employment exchange at the time of their initial appointment. The applicants have enclosed a detailed chart (Annexure A-3) giving the name, date of appointment, posts hold, educational qualification and employment exchange number etc.

4. Similarly, the applicants in OA No.882/2019 have submitted that applicant Nos.1 and 2 came to be appointed with the respondent No.7 as Typist cum Computer Operator and Watchman respectively w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and 20.06.2014 respectively in different capacities after conducting the interview of each applicant. All the applicants were enrolled with the employment exchange at the time of their initial appointment. The applicants have enclosed a detailed chart (Annexure A-3) giving the name, date of appointment, posts hold, educational qualification and employment exchange number etc.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants Shri Pathak submits that similar matters came up before this Tribunal vide OA No.2045/2014, 651/2013, 729/2013 & 2220/2016 and the Tribunal vide order dated 14.11.2018 was pleased to quash and set aside the impugned communication with the direction to the respondents to consider the eligible applicants for regularization of their services as per the provisions of relevant rules and instructions of the Government in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi Court in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 1 . He, therefore, submits that similar direction may be passed in these OAs also.

6. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. Inter alia, it has been submitted that the facts of applicants in OA No.2045/2014, 651/2013, 729/2019 & 2220/2016 are different from the facts of the applicants in these OAs. It has been submitted that after the order was passed by the Tribunal, their representation was considered and it was found that the applicants were not eligible for regularization and, accordingly, they were not regularized. Therefore, the applicants in OA Nos.2045/2014, 651/2013, 729/2019 & 2220/2016 have filed Contempt Petition No.2017/2020 in OA No.2045/2014 before this Tribunal and the department filed compliance report stating therein that none of the daily wagers/causal employees have been replaced by another set of daily wagers/causal employees and further stated that none of the applicants fulfilled the criteria required for regularization as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Uma Devi (supra). of On the basis of reply filed by the respondents, the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Contempt Petition filed by the applicants. It has been submitted that the applicants in these OAs are relitigating the same issue which has already been decided by