Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 583 (KAR)

Union Of India v. P. Somanna

2022-04-22

M.G.UMA, P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. - Union of India through the Deputy Director, Doordarshan have presented this writ petition with following prayers: a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other Writ quashing the impugned orders dated 21.8.2017 in OA No. 170/00133/2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore produced at Annexure-C. b) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Shri. M. Vasudeva Rao, learned Senior CGC, for petitioners and Shri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned Advocate for respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are, respondent approached the CAT contending inter alia that he was engaged as a casual labourer in High Power Transmitter, Doordarshan, Shimogga since 1992. He has worked as Office Attendant, Sweeper, Security Guard etc. His request for regularization was not considered by petitioners. He filed O.A. No. 612/2016 and the CAT vide order dated November 2, 2016 had directed the petitioners to consider his case. The Deputy Director, Administration of Prasar Bharathi vide order dated February 2, 2017 (Annexure-A11), communicated that it was not possible to accede to petitioner's request made in the representation dated November 26, 2016. Respondent again approached CAT with the instant OA praying inter alia to quash Annexure-A11 and to direct petitioners to regularize his services. The O.A. was contested by the petitioners that respondent was engaged as and when required on daily wages along with other casual labourers. From May, 1999 to December 2003, respondent has been engaged through an outsourcing agency by name M/s. Industrial Security Agency, Shimogga. He was paid on consolidated basis and he is not entitled for temporary status as he had not completed one year of regular service as on 01.09.1993. By the impugned order, the CAT has allowed the OA by holding that respondent is entitled for grant of temporary status and regularization on seniority basis. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Shri. M.V. Rao, for the Union of India submitted that the CAT has erred in holding that respondent is entitled for regularization on the basis of Uma Devi's case1. Adverting to para 45 of the very judgment, he submitted that respondent was not engaged against any sanctioned post. The Transmission unit has been closed with effect from October 2021. 4. Shri. M.V. Rao, for the Union of India submitted that the CAT has erred in holding that respondent is entitled for regularization on the basis of Uma Devi's case1. Adverting to para 45 of the very judgment, he submitted that respondent was not engaged against any sanctioned post. The Transmission unit has been closed with effect from October 2021. He submitted that Uma Devi's case has been considered in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lal and others (2011) 2 SCC 429 (para 12) and the view taken by the CAT is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this writ petition. 5. Shri. Seetharama Rao, for the respondent argued in support of the impugned order. Adverting toAnnexure-A1, he submitted that Doordarshan has maintained a detailed account of payments made to the respondent. It has extracted work from him from 1992 as a Casual Labourer and therefore he is entitled to be regularised. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 7. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner was initially engaged by Doordarshan and later through the man power agency. Respondent's case is, he has worked from 1992 to 2016. Therefore, his services are required to be regularized. 8. The CAT has recorded in para 11 of its order that respondent was doing various office works like sweeping, cleaning etc. From May 1999 to December 2003, he was engaged through 'Industrial Security Agency' and from 2003, Doordarshan has directly engaged him. In para 13, it has held that respondent was engaged as Casual labourer from 1992 and he had completed one year's engagement as on 01.09.1993 and therefore, eligible for regularization as per Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme 1993. It has further held that Tribunal, the High Court and the Apex Court have given direction in favour of Casual Labourers in terms of Uma Devi's judgment in several instances. 9. In Daya Lal, the Apex Court has held as follows: "12. It has further held that Tribunal, the High Court and the Apex Court have given direction in favour of Casual Labourers in terms of Uma Devi's judgment in several instances. 9. In Daya Lal, the Apex Court has held as follows: "12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment". Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The Apex Court has also referred to Uma Devi and other cases in Daya Lal. 11. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daya Lal, the impugned order passed by the CAT is not sustainable. 12. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Writ petition is ALLOWED. (b) Order dated August 21, 2017 in O.A. No. 170/00133/2017 passed by the CAT, Bangalore is set-aside and the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.