Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1274 (MP)

Mahipal Singh v. Union of India

2014-10-07

ROHIT ARYA, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 2. Instant petition has been filed challenging an order dated 11/10/2013 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 117/12. The petitioner was engaged on temporary basis. He sought a relief to the effect that a direction be issued to the respondents to formulate a policy in regard to regularize the service of the petitioner alongwith other similarly situated persons in view of the fact that large number of posts were falling vacant. 3. The respondents in their reply before the tribunal had pleaded that the petitioner was engaged casually without issuing any advertisement. His name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Further he was not appointed against sanctioned vacant post. The tribunal also directed the petitioner to submit details in view of the objections raised by the respondents in the return on the question of engagement/appointment of the petitioner to ascertain whether any advertisement was issued at the time of his appointment/engagement or his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange or whether the appointment in question was made against sanctioned vacant post. The tribunal observed that the petitioner failed to produce all the requisite informations/details to satisfy his claim for regularization in service. Hence, in view of the pronouncement of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon. Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnanataka & others Vs. Uma Devi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , it was held that the petitioner was not eligible to get any benefit. Similar point has been considered by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 22083/2012 (Laxmi Prasad Dubey & others Vs. Union of India & others) vide order dated 11/2/2013 in which the Division Bench has taken a view as under:- 11.2.2013 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari and Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 26.9.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners' Original Application No. 746/2011. The petitioners' claim themselves to be daily wage workers of the respondents. Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari and Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 26.9.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners' Original Application No. 746/2011. The petitioners' claim themselves to be daily wage workers of the respondents. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CPDT) vide letter dated 04.7.2011 has informed all the cadre controlling authority to outsource the services like data entry/typing/cleaning/security on contract basis without employing the individual contingent workers for these purposes. The letter dated 04.07.2011 reiterates the direction of the Department of Personal & Training (DOPT) New Delhi Instruction Dated 7.6.1998. It even has the reference of General Finance Rules (GFR) 178 which permits outsourcing of various services. The aforesaid decision for outsourcing was taken in the interest of economy and efficiency. The petitioners apprehending discontinuance of their services filed O.A. No. 746/2011 before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The Tribunal while dismissing the original application in paragraph 8 of the order has held as under: "Thus, in our considered opinion, the decision of Annexure A/1 is a policy decision which is in consonance of GFR 178 and the same is not open to challenge, that too at the instance of the applicants only on the ground that the aforesaid decision is likely to be enforced retrospectively and that may affect their employment and they may be removed from service. In the absence of any specific order of removal of the applicants as casual worker and in view of the specific stand of the respondents in their reply that no action for removal of the applicants is being taken/contemplated at present and payments are being made to them in individual capacity as per the Government's guidelines regarding payment of wages to the casual workers, the instant Original Application is premature and the same is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs." The petitioners despite opportunities have not filed their appointment orders. The respondents have stated that no appointment orders have been issued to the petitioners. The nature of relationship of the petitioners with the respondents, particularly regarding terms and conditions of their service, is therefore not clear. Apparently, the petitioners have no right to stop the respondents from outsourcing their certain services in the interest of economy and efficiency. The respondents have stated that no appointment orders have been issued to the petitioners. The nature of relationship of the petitioners with the respondents, particularly regarding terms and conditions of their service, is therefore not clear. Apparently, the petitioners have no right to stop the respondents from outsourcing their certain services in the interest of economy and efficiency. The respondents submit that there is no bar for contractor if he decides to appoint the petitioners for carrying out the services outsourced. For these reasons we find no illegality in the impugned order and merit in the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. In the result, the interim order dated 27.12.2012 passed in favour of petitioners stands vacated." 4. Looking to the aforesaid facts with further fact that since the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to the effect that his appointment was in accordance with law, the learned tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnanataka & others Vs. Uma Devi (supra). 5. Eventually, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly. 6. No order as to costs.