CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM Original Application No. 181/00790/2018 Thursday, this the 30^th day of January, 2025 CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)

P.P. Ashraf, aged 55 years, S/o. Bithanattu Kidavu, Casual Labourer, Animal Husbandry Unit, Androth, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, residing at Palathupura House, Androth, Lakshadweep. ..... Applicant (By Advocates : Mr. S.M. Prasanth & Mr. T. Ramprasad Unni)

V e r s u s

1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti – 682 555.

3. The Director of Animal Husbandry, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti – 682 555. ..... Respondents [By Advocates : Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC (R1) &

Mrs. Sreekala K.L., Senior Panel Counsel (R2&3)]

This Original Application having been heard on 17.01.2025, the Tribunal on 30.01.2025 delivered the following:

O R D E R Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -

The applicant herein was engaged as a casual labour in the Animal Husbandry Department under the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents since 1995, discharging the duties of a Group-D employee. Annexures A1 and A2 cumulatively evidences that he had been employed from 1.6.1995 to 15.6.2016. A scheme for regularization of such employees was issued through an OM dated 10.9.1993. The applicant sought regularization under the said scheme, by filing an Original Application. It was not successful, even though the matter was taken up to the High Court. Hence, Annexure A4 representation dated 14.10.2013 was filed seeking regularization. Since it was not responded, Annexure A5 lawyer notice was issued. Since that was also not positively responded, the present OA was filed claiming regularization on the basis that the applicant had been continuously engaged for more than 10 years, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. It had directed that those who had ten years of continuous service with employer, on the date of the judgment, were entitled for regular appointment as a one-time measure. He also sought the benefit of the decisions reported in Jolly P.G. v. Union of India [(2016) 2 KHC 222] and also in Sadanandan v. State of Kerala & Ors [(2016) 5 KHC 377]. While so, his representation was rejected by Annexure A6 dated 28.4.2022. In the OA, the essential reliefs sought are as follows:

“a) To declare that the denial of regular appointment to the applicant in anyone of the vacancies in Group D posts in the services of the 2^nd respondent is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

b) To issue a direction to the respondents to regularize services of the applicant under the 2^nd respondent taking into consideration the entire service of the applicant, in the Group D cadre with retrospective effect, from the date of first appointment, with all service benefits including monetary and pension, in the interest of justice.

c) ………….

d) To call for the records leading up to Annexure A6 and set aside the same.

e) To issue directions to the respondents to pay equal remuneration for the service rendered by him and paid to the similarly situated casual labourers/employees as per the VII central pay revision orders with effect from 01.01.2016.”

2. Reply statement was filed by the respondents seriously disputing the claim made by the applicant and contending that he was not entitled to any reliefs in the OA. He has been in the service of the Department of Animal Husbandry from 1.6.1995 as a casual labour. He commenced his service prior to 1980 and was disengaged on 23.5.1981. He was readmitted as a casual labour on 1.6.1995 and has been in continuous service thereafter. Since he was not in engagement as on 10.9.1993, he was not conferred with temporary status under the scheme. Since he was not conferred with temporary status as per the Recruitment Rul