Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1439 (GAU)

Bimala Kalita v. Union of India

2017-11-15

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. 1. The issue for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of temporary status under the Scheme issued by the Department of Personnel and Training called the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation), Scheme of Government of India, 1993. The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gu wahati Bench seeking relief for regularisation of service in terms of para 53 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as for grant of temporary status under the aforesaid Scheme of 1993. The same having been negated by Order dated 3.7.2015 in O.A. No. 279 of 2013, the present writ petition has been instituted. 2. The Scheme was brought into force with effect from 1.9.1993 and made applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries/Departments of Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices on the date of its issue, excluding those casual workers employed in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and Department of Posts. Clause 4(i) being the edifice for deciding the present case, may be reproduced: “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).” 3. Records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a Manager in the Accountant General (Audit) Assam Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd. from April 1992 by virtue of the appointment order issued by the Secretary of the said Employees Co-operative. It was only in December, 1993 the said canteen was departmentalised and the petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wage Labourer in the departmental canteen as well as for typing work from January 1994 to August 2008. Such engagement as Daily Wage Labourer was discontinued and from September 2008 to March 2011 she was engaged on typing work on contractual basis. For the period from May 2011 to March 2013 the petitioner worked under a private agency and not under the office of the respondent-authority. Such engagement as Daily Wage Labourer was discontinued and from September 2008 to March 2011 she was engaged on typing work on contractual basis. For the period from May 2011 to March 2013 the petitioner worked under a private agency and not under the office of the respondent-authority. Records reveal that in the written statement filed by the respondent-authority before the Tribunal, stand taken is that the Scheme of 1993 is not applicable as the petitioner was engaged as Daily Wage Labourer and not as a Casual Labourer through Employment Exchange. 4. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed this court that for the period from January 1992 to March 1992, the petitioner was employed in the type pool of the Editing Cell as Casual Typist and thereafter was assigned with the managerial work of the canteen. According to the petitioner this fact is within the knowledge of the respondent-authority and in this regard she had also submitted a representation on 22.4.2013. Despite this fact not being pleaded before the Tribunal, we had passed an order on 24.10.2017 directing the Principal Accountant General to state on affidavit whether the petitioner really worked for three months as Casual Typist, as in that case the benefit of the Scheme may turn to her advantage. The affidavit filed on 13.11.2017 by the respondent No. 3, more particularly at paragraph 7 thereof, it is categorically stated that no record is found in the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Assam regarding engagement of the petitioner as Casual Typist during the period from January 1992 to March 1992. 5. What transpires from the above is that on the date of promulgation of the Scheme of 1993, i.e., 1.9.1993, the petitioner was not working as a Casual Labourer in the employment of the respondent department. She was only engaged as a Manager of a canteen run by the AG (Audit) Assam Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd. It was only in December 1993 that the said canteen was departmentalised, following which the petitioner came to be engaged as a Daily Wage Labourer in the departmental canteen as well as being engaged for typing work from January 1994. 6. The conditions precedent for conferring temporary status, as envisaged in Clause 4 of the Scheme of 1993, being absent vis-a-vis the petitioner, no relief, as prayed for, can be granted. 6. The conditions precedent for conferring temporary status, as envisaged in Clause 4 of the Scheme of 1993, being absent vis-a-vis the petitioner, no relief, as prayed for, can be granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Nagina Kumar v. Central Public Works Department of the High Court of Delhiin Civil Writ Petition No. 2886 of 2000. We have perused the said judgment and place on record that the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The essential difference is that in the case before the High Court of Delhi there was a letter of the respondent-authority suggesting that the petitioner therein was engaged as a Casual Labour. In the present case there is no admission or any suggestion made on behalf of the respondent-authority that the petitioner was employed as a Casual Labour in the respondent department prior to and/or on the date of issuance of the Scheme of 1993, for which the benefit of temporary status could be made available to the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the above, we find no merit in the present writ petition and, therefore, the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.