Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 706 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Manoj Kumar Ram,Shanker Kumar

2002-07-05

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners Mr. A.K. Tripathi and counsel for the respondents Mr. Gautam Bose. 2. Union of India has filed the present writ petition against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13.10.2000 on two cases O.A. No. 586 of 1999 : Shanker Kumar and others V/s. the Union of India & others and O.A. No. 542 of 1999 : Manoj Kumar Ram and others V/s. the Union of India & others : 3. The contention of the Union of India is that the only matter up for interpretation before the Central Administrative Tribunal was the scheme of the Government of India dated 1.9.1993. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case it would be best to reproduce the scheme in this order. 1. This scheme shall be called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993" 2. This scheme will come into force with effect from 1.9.1993. 3. This scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries/Departments of Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices, on the date of issue of these orders. But it shall not be applicable to casual workers in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and Department of Posts who already have their own schemes. 4. Temporary status (i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week). (ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Group D posts. 4. Courts attention is drawn to the first paragraph of the facts noticed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 542 of 1999 where the Tribunal had inspected the record as presented by the Union of India and records that the applicants before the Tribunal had been appointed on different dates in between 1994-95. There is no issue on this aspect that the appointment of the applicants before the Tribunal was subsequent to the cut off date of the scheme i.e. to say 1 September 1993. 5. There is no issue on this aspect that the appointment of the applicants before the Tribunal was subsequent to the cut off date of the scheme i.e. to say 1 September 1993. 5. Any status which had been conferred on such of those employees who had been in employment as on 1.9.1993 was contingent upon two conditions (a) they must be in service on this day (b) on this date they should have discharged continuous service. 6. Clearly, the respondents, the applicants, before the Tribunal had not even been employed as on 1 September 1993 and in the circumstances the Tribunal committed an error in granting a relief beyond the scheme. This error is apparent on the face of the record. 7. In this regard it would be appropriate for this Court to be guided by the two decisions of the Supreme Court one in the matter of Punjab Electricity Board & another V/s. Wazir Singh, JT 2002 (3) SC 49. In this case, the Supreme Court has made it clear that if any benefit is to be granted to a worker on the basis of circulars which permit an employment to continue and stipulate that the person must be in service on a certain day and should have discharged the continuous service then there is no escape from these two conditions. In the other case, in the matter of Union of India & Ors. V/s. Mohan Pal, (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 573, the Supreme Court was examining the scheme, in context, and indicated and in no uncertain terms in paragraph 6 that the scheme of 1 September 1993 cannot be read as a on going scheme. The two conditions have to be certified that the person must be in service on the date of the scheme and he should have discharged continuous service. It is another matter that the Supreme Court was also examining the aspect that having rendered service 3 years, subsequently would the employees, concerned, be entitled to certain benefits as available to the Group Demployees. 8. It is another matter that the Supreme Court was also examining the aspect that having rendered service 3 years, subsequently would the employees, concerned, be entitled to certain benefits as available to the Group Demployees. 8. In the circumstances the Union of India has made out a case that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error apparent on the face of the record in granting benefit to certain employees who otherwise, were not entitled nor were covered under the scheme known as the Department of Personnel and Training, Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme which was to be enforced w.e.f. 1.9.1993. Clearly, the applicants had been employed much after the applicability of the scheme. 9. Petition allowed. No order as to costs.