Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 409 (JK)

Muzaffer Ahmad Kashoo & Ors v. Union Of India

2002-12-28

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2002
1. Petitioner No. 1 is in the service of respondent as casual Laborer since 1986 and the other two petitioners too are in the service of Food Corporation of India, as Causal Laborers since 1990-91 (Annexure-A). Petitioners have been working as such Causal Laborers and discharging duties in different capacities all along. The case of petitioners was also recommended by their immediate officers for regularization. But, as there was no response for the other side, petitioners filed writ petition 262 of 196, which was disposed of by Order Dated 10.09.1997 by Ld, Single Bench of this Court I terms of order as under:- In the circumstances, officials respondents are directed to consider petitioner™s case for regularization of their services taking in regard the award of the Central Administrative Tribunal in case Surinder Kumar and others vs. Food Corporation of India and pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with rules within three months from the date of receipt of this order. This petition stands disposed of at its admission to hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties." 2. As follow up, respondent No. 3 Senior Regional Manager of Food Corporation of India, headquarters at Jammu, declined to regularize the petitioners vide Order dated 04.02.1998 (Annexure-H). This order is under challenge in this petition. The order is alleged to have been passed in colourable exercise of power without carrying out the mandate of the court direction. The excellent work done by the petitioners in most trying circumstances when the employees of the corporation migrated from valley en masse has not been considered. The satisfactory and laudible work done by the petitioners and even appreciated by their immediate officers and even reflected in communications recommending petitioners case for regularization has been wholly ignored. After all the cases of petitioners who have worked for long 12 to 15 years and served devotedly the Food Corporation of India in keeping it going the valley cannot be brushed aside so lightly. Petitioners having worked regularly for years together and having rendered the job with trappings of a permanent nature cannot be shown door in disregard to law, rules, equity and justness of petitioners case. Respondents-Food Corporation of India by not applying its mind properly and considering the case in right perspective has failed to discharge their legal obligations to carry out the order, directions under law. Respondents-Food Corporation of India by not applying its mind properly and considering the case in right perspective has failed to discharge their legal obligations to carry out the order, directions under law. Independently whether petitioners case falls within the sweep of circular EP 1 (4)25-vol II dated 06.05.1987, as referred in the award given by the industrial Tribunl-cum-labour Court Chandigarh in Surinder Kumar and other s vs. Food Corporation of India and others, the competent authority was to consider the petitioners case on its own merits, as mandated by Writ Court judgement dated 10.09.1997. Petitioners case has been dealt with artificially and not considered on its merits accompanied by attending circumstances and the prevalent situation, when the petitioners were engaged and the adverse conditions in which they have been working all along. 3. The main defence of respondents in reply is, that the order dated 10.09.1997 of the writ court is confined to grant of considerations to petitioners case in terms of the award of Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court Chandhigarh in Surinder Kumar™s case. This award in terms provides that the case of the petitioners to that award were covered by Circular (Ex.W11) dated 06.05.1986, the pre-requisite for regularization of service. In this case petitioners have been engaged and are in the service of Food Corporation of India, as such., casual labourers from 1986 and 1990 and in any case not earlier to cut of date of 02.05.1986. The petitioners case has been thus considered and is rejected by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, (Respondent No. 3). 4. The Ld. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the range and scope of court direction in judgement dated 10.09.1997 (SWP No. 262 of 1996) is vital to govern the question, if the respondents have considered petitioners case in the letter and spirit of the direction or not, apart form the stands taken by the counsel in accord with the stance of petitioners and respondents put forth in their respective pleadings. The operative portion of the judgement/order dated 10.09.1997 (Annexure-E) is as under: ".....In the circumstances, official respondents are directed to consider petitioner™s case for regularization of their services taking in regard the award of the Central Administrative Tribunal in case Surinder Kumar and others Vs. The operative portion of the judgement/order dated 10.09.1997 (Annexure-E) is as under: ".....In the circumstances, official respondents are directed to consider petitioner™s case for regularization of their services taking in regard the award of the Central Administrative Tribunal in case Surinder Kumar and others Vs. Food Corporation of India and pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with rules within three months from the date of receipt of this order. This petition stands disposed of at its admission to hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties." 5. A plain reading of the Court direction would show that the petitioners case for regularization of their services was to be considered by the respondents and for the purpose were required to have regard to the award of the Industrial cum Labour Court Tribunal, Chandigarh (wrongly referred as Central Administrative Tribunal) in Surinder Kumar™s case and pass appropriate orders under rules within a period of three months. Obviously, respondents/competent authority was required to deal with the matter on merits and examine the petitioner™s case for regularisation within the canopy of applicable rules after duly accounting for the facts and circumstances of the case. The order no where provides that respondents were required to take a hypertechnical view of the matter and address the issue only from the standpoint of the award of the Industrial-cum-Labour Court Tribunal, Chandigarh, in Surinder Kumar™s case on literal meaning of the Ciruclar dated 06.05.1987. Such a hypertechnical view would not advance the cause of justice or even concentrate on the equities of the case and address the hard facts and circumstances emerging from record. Whether petitioners have acquired eligibility, merit or are required to be regularized in terms of rules or instructions issued during last over a decade are the issues, which have not been at all addressed to and considered. This is more pronounced when the communications dated 05.05.1992, 02.06.1992 and 02.01.1996 (annexure-B to D) recommending petitioners cause for regularisation and formal appointment on the basis of performance, good conduct and working in extra-ordinary situation primarily affected by militancy and vice of migration of the corporation employees from the valley are noticed not to have been taken note of. The conduct of petitioner™s cases on the part of respondent No. 3 is not too healthy, given the fact situation of this case. The conduct of petitioner™s cases on the part of respondent No. 3 is not too healthy, given the fact situation of this case. It is strange, notwithstanding, a little said about delaying of accord of consideration, that the case(s) is not appropriately, meaningfully and fully dealt with and decided with reasonable dispatch in true legal spirit. The consideration has been accorded I a lopsided manner, without addressing the real issue by taking a hypertechnical view of the matter. The merits of the case and the petitioners claim for regularisation independently of the Ciruclar in question has not been addressed to. In fact, the direction of the court is not at all complied with. 6. In result, in the above view taken, the impugned order No. RO/LEGAL/262 dated 04.02.1998 is quashed and the respondents/competent authority is issued a mandamus to accord wholesome and due consideration to petitioners case(s) for regularisation under law after keeping in view the observations made herein-above. 7. Disposed of.