1. The applicant along with others, on sponsorship by employment exchange, was engaged on 24.4.2006 after interview as waterman on daily wage basis in the Department for a period of 89 days as per Annexure A-1.
2. It is stated that the applicant was deployed on various kinds of work like cleaning, dusting, lifting records etc. as well. His engagement was extended from time to time with artificial breaks in between, as a result of which he completed 238 days of satisfactory service, but instead of regularizing him he was discharged by a verbal order w.e.f. 3.2.2007 on the pretext of completion of work with an assurance of re-engagement subject to availability of the same. It is contended that one Shri Jitender Kumar who was similarly situated has been allowed to continue. As such, the applicant states he has been discriminated against and arbitrarily terminated.
3. It has been claimed that the applicant is eligible for grant of temporary status and regularization as per Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993, as also the law laid down by the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 933/2003 in Vimal Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in CWJ No. 2905/2005 by judgment dated 21.9.2005 and the SLP filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed on 4.7.2006 in CC No. 4241/2006. However, the benefit of the scheme was not extended to the applicant even though he had completed more than 206 days of satisfactory service required therein. It is submitted that the respondents are expected to requisition the employment exchange for engaging casual labour again and it has been suggested to the applicant informally to get his name re-sponsored from the employment exchange.
The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the law laid down in Central Welfare Board and Ors. v. Ms. Anjali Bepari and Ors. 1996 (2) SCSLJ 316 cannot be ignored to deprive the applicant. The applicant has, therefore, sought the following relief: (a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant record pertaining to the present OA before the Hon'ble Tribunal for the proper adjudication in the matter.
(b) Directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for reengagement against juniors and outsiders without insisting the applicant to re sponsoring his name from the employment exchange again and thereafter.
(c) Direct the respondents to extend the benefits of the Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status And Regularization) Scheme 1993 as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal, Patna Bench in OA No. 933/2003 in case of Vimal Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.
confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna (D.B.) in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2905/2005 vide their lordship judgement dt.
21.09.05 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also vide their lordship judgement dt. 04.07.06 in C.C. No. 4241/2006 i.e. in case of UOI and Ors. v. Vimal Kumar and Ors.
(d) Allowing the OA of the applicant with all other consequential benefits and costs.
(e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicant.
4. The counsel for the applicant has emphasized the relevance of the order passed by the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 933/2003 and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court as well as dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above. It is stated that the applicant is accordingly eligible to be considered for grant of temporary status and regularization under the scheme of 1993. He should be re-engaged without insisting on his name being re-sponsored by the employment exchange. A perusal of the judgments relied upon indicates that the Tribunal had directed the respondents to confer temporary status upon the applicants therein, from the date they became eligible under the scheme of 1993 and extended from time to time, as also consider their case for regularization against the available vacancy, but without any back wages on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The Hon'ble High Court found that the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr.
v. Mohan Pal and Ors. had held in para 11 that the scheme of 1993 was not an ongoing scheme and temporary status could be conferred on casual labourers on fulfillment of the conditions in clause 4 thereof which required that they should have been casual labourers in employment as on the date of the commencement of the scheme and should have rendered continuous service as specified therein. The date of the scheme was 1.9.1993 and while observing that it was a one-time scheme, the Court noticed other relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court including State of Haryana and Ors. etc. v.Piara Singh and Ors. etc. and found that the applicants had completed a long and uninterrupted continuous service, inter alia because of which, it was considered justifiable to uphold the order passed by the Tribunal. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC 4241/2006 reads, 'Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.'Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
indicating any reasons, there is no merger nor any law has been laid down therein. It is noticeable that in the present case the applicant does not have a continuous and uninterrupted engagement as casual labour and also that he was engaged on 24.4.2006 and as such the scheme of 1993 would not be applicable to him. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) has distinguished the judgment in Piara Singh (supra) and declared that casual labour have no legal right for permanence and their engagement can be discontinued when no longer required. Further, regularization without following the constitutional scheme of recruitment in terms of Articles 14 and 16 thereof would be illegal, and earlier decisions of the Apex Court in that regard would no longer have precedent value. As a result, I am of the opinion that the above judgments relied upon by the applicant do not advance his case.
6. However, as pointed out by the learned Counsel it is noticeable that no representation has been made by the applicant to the respondents for re-engagement seeking exemption from re-sponsorship from the employment exchange. It is felt that respondents would not be prejudiced if the matter is disposed of at this stage itself by granting liberty to the applicant to apply for re-engagement as casual labour enclosing therewith such documents as considered necessary as well as the judgment of the Apex court in Anjali Bepari (supra) in support of his case. On receipt, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and inform the applicant by a speaking order within a period of six weeks thereafter.