Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 75 (JK)

Union Of India v. Manzoor Ahmed Reshi

2004-03-26

R.C.GANDHI, SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2004
This writ petition has been directed against the judgment dated 22.08.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit at Srinagar whereby four applications of the respondents seeking temporary status have been disposed of. 2. The respondents have been employed by the petitioners as Daily Wagers/Casual Workers. They claim the temporary status on the ground that they were working with the petitioners on the date of formulation of the scheme i.e. 1.9.1993. The petitioner did not accept the claim of the respondents. The respondents approached the Tribunal for grant of temporary status. 3. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, the applications of the respondents were disposed of by the Tribunal in the following terms: "Accordingly, we dispose of the present applications, subject to what we have recorded above further direct ing the respondents that : a. the artificial breaks referred to above shall be ig-nored by the respondents. b. the individual cases of the aplicants shall be considered as per the scheme and their seniority, which is stated to have already been drawn. If it has not been drawn,it shouldbedrawnin accordance with the scheme." 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is a break of over one year in the working of the respondents and the respondents were not working with the petitioners on the particular day of operation of the Scheme, i.e. 10.9.1993, therefore, according to the scheme they are not entitled to temporary status. He has relied upon Annexure-B which reveals that from the year 1993 the respondents are not continously working with the petitioners and in the year 1993 they have also not worked for full year. This plea of the petitioners is rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondents urging that the respondents are working with them and correct record has not been produced before the Court. On examination of the record, it appears that the respondents have also not produced any better evidence to that what has been produced by the petitioners. On scrutiny of the judgment under appeal it is seen that the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider the individual cases of the respondents and pass appropriate orders. Instead of complying with the direction of the Tribunal, the petitioners have approached the Court. On scrutiny of the judgment under appeal it is seen that the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider the individual cases of the respondents and pass appropriate orders. Instead of complying with the direction of the Tribunal, the petitioners have approached the Court. If on examination of the record, the petitioners find that the respondents are not working with them for the requisite period, they can pass orders accordingly. The petitioners while examining the cases of the respondents have to bear in mind that the artificial breaks are not to be considered and for that circumstance the respondents should not be dislodged. 6. For the aforesaid reasons there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.