Divisional Engineer (Planning and Administration), Office of Gm, Telecom Vs. Parma Das - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - the tribunal by means of the impugned order held that the respondents/appellants have arbitrarily failed to consider the prayer for granting of benefits provided to the casual labourers under the casual labourers (grant of temporary status and regularisation) scheme of the department of telecommunications, 1989. by virtue of the order passed by the tribunal, the applicant/respondent has to be considered for conferment of temporary status as admissible under the scheme. brijesh kumar, c. j. 1. hear mr. s. kalita, learned addl. standing counsel for the union of india, appearing for the petitioner. 2. this petition has been preferredimpugning the order passed by the centraladministrative tribunal, guwahati bench,dated september 16, 1998 original applicationno. 124 of 1997. 3. the respondent was working as a casual labourer in the telecom department at guwahati. he approached the tribunal with a prayer that the authority be directed to consider conferring temporary status on the applicant and subsequently to regularise his service as may be admissible under the scheme. the tribunal by means of the impugned order held that the respondents/appellants have arbitrarily failed to consider the prayer for granting of benefits provided to the casual labourers under the casual labourers (grant of temporary status and regularisation) scheme of the department of telecommunications, 1989. by virtue of the order passed by the tribunal, the applicant/respondent has to be considered for conferment of temporary status as admissible under the scheme. 4. the divisional engineer (planning and; administration), department of telecommunication, guwahati has filed this writ petition. mr. s. kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the central administrative tribunal will have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the casual labourer as he neither holds a civil post, nor belongs to any central services. in this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through section 14 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985. 5. at the outset we may observe that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985, provides that the central administrative tribunal will have jurisdiction in matters relating to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the union or a civil post under the union. it is submitted that the respondent as a casual labourer does not hold any civil post. we feel that the point for consideration is slightly different. it is not necessary that the applicant must on the date he approaches the central administrative tribunal, hold a civil post. the scheme has been admittedly promulgated by the government, known as 'the casual labourers (grant of temporary status and regularisation) scheme of the department of telecommunications, 1989'. the scheme is applicable to the casual labourers employed by the department of telecommunications. it provides that the vacancies in group d cadre in various offices of the department of telecommunications would be exclusively filled up by regularisation of casual labourers and no outsider will be appointed to the cadre till the absorption of all existing casual labourers provided they fulfil the eligibility criteria. before the appointment in group d cadre, the casual labourer is to be conferred temporary status on the basis of the criteria laid down under the scheme. 6. in our view, the scheme undoubtedly lays down the process of recruitment of casual labourers to the group d cadre in the department. if one feels that one is being denied the benefit of the scheme issued by the central government, one would certainly be entitled to approach the central administrative tribunal in case under the scheme one is ultimately to be recruited to group d cadre. this is a scheme which provides for recruitment to the group d cadre step by step, namely, a casual labourer is at first to be conferred the status of temporary employee on the basis of the criteria laid down under the scheme and thereafter he is to be absorbed in group d cadre. the whole process is thus the recruitment process to the civil post or service. it is not necessary, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on the date one approaches the tribunal, one must hold a civil post. a dispute relating to claim to a civil post as provided under the scheme issued by the central government, would be cognizable by the central administrative tribunal. the dispute relates to a post in the 'cadre' of group 'd' of department of telecommunication. learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the hon'ble supreme court reported in union of india v. chotelal and ors., air 1999 sc 376 wherein it has been held that washermen appointed to wash the clothes of cadets in national defence academy do not hold a civil post since they were being paid from the regimental fund and not from the consolidated fund of india or any public fund under the control of ministry of defence. it appears that the regimental fund used to be raised from the stipends paid to the cadets. in this view of the matter we find that the case cited is distinguishable. it has not been shown that the petitioner/respondent was not being paid out of the public funds under the control of the department. 7. in view of the discussions held above, we find no merit in the submission that the order passed by the central administrative tribunal is without jurisdiction. hence, the petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:

Brijesh Kumar, C. J.

1. Hear Mr. S. Kalita, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Union of India, appearing for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been preferred

impugning the order passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench,

dated September 16, 1998 Original Application

No. 124 of 1997.

3. The respondent was working as a casual labourer in the Telecom Department at Guwahati. He approached the Tribunal with a prayer that the authority be directed to consider conferring temporary status on the applicant and subsequently to regularise his service as may be admissible under the scheme. The Tribunal by means of the impugned order held that the respondents/appellants have arbitrarily failed to consider the prayer for granting of benefits provided to the casual labourers under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989. By virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal, the applicant/respondent has to be considered for conferment of temporary status as admissible under the scheme.

4. The Divisional Engineer (Planning and; Administration), Department of Telecommunication, Guwahati has filed this writ petition. Mr. S. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the Central Administrative Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the casual labourer as he neither holds a civil post, nor belongs to any Central Services. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

5. At the outset we may observe that Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides that the Central Administrative Tribunal will have jurisdiction in matters relating to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union. It is submitted that the respondent as a casual labourer does not hold any civil post. We feel that the point for consideration is slightly different. It is not necessary that the applicant must on the date he approaches the Central Administrative Tribunal, hold a civil post. The scheme has been admittedly promulgated by the Government, known as 'the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989'. The scheme is applicable to the casual labourers employed by the Department of Telecommunications. It provides that the vacancies in Group D cadre in various offices of the Department of Telecommunications would be exclusively filled up by regularisation of casual labourers and no outsider will be appointed to the cadre till the absorption of all existing casual labourers provided they fulfil the eligibility criteria. Before the appointment in Group D cadre, the casual labourer is to be conferred temporary status on the basis of the criteria laid down under the scheme.

6. In our view, the scheme undoubtedly lays down the process of recruitment of casual labourers to the Group D cadre in the Department. If one feels that one is being denied the benefit of the scheme issued by the Central Government, one would certainly be entitled to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in case under the scheme one is ultimately to be recruited to Group D cadre. This is a scheme which provides for recruitment to the Group D cadre step by step, namely, a casual labourer is at first to be conferred the status of temporary employee on the basis of the criteria laid down under the scheme and thereafter he is to be absorbed in Group D cadre. The whole process is thus the recruitment process to the civil post or service. It is not necessary, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on the date one approaches the Tribunal, one must hold a civil post. A dispute relating to claim to a civil post as provided under the scheme issued by the Central Government, would be cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The dispute relates to a post in the 'cadre' of Group 'D' of Department of Telecommunication.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Chotelal and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 376 wherein it has been held that washermen appointed to wash the clothes of cadets in National Defence Academy do not hold a civil post since they were being paid from the Regimental fund and not from the Consolidated Fund of India or any public fund under the control of Ministry of Defence. It appears that the Regimental fund used to be raised from the stipends paid to the cadets. In this view of the matter we find that the case cited is distinguishable. It has not been shown that the petitioner/respondent was not being paid out of the public funds under the control of the Department.

7. In view of the discussions held above, we find no merit in the submission that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is without jurisdiction. Hence, the petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.