P.A. Kurian Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Chief Post Master General, Kerala, Trivandrum and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/939563
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided OnJun-04-2009
Case NumberO.A. NO. 631 OF 2007
JudgeHONOURABLE DR. K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AppellantP.A. Kurian
RespondentUnion of India, Represented by the Chief Post Master General, Kerala, Trivandrum and Another
Advocates:For the Applicant: Mr. Siby J Monipally, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. TPM Ibrahim Khan, SCGSC.
Excerpt:
hon'ble dr. k.b.s. rajan, judicial member applicant in this case, a casual labourer with 8 hours duty, seeks the following reliefs: a) to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant with effect from 30/10/2000 in the group d category and other consequential benefits thereof. and b) grant such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstance of the case may require. 2. briefly stated, according to the applicant, he had entered the railway mail service in january 1984 through employment exchange as a part time watchman vide annexure a1. he was later on granted full time status in october 2000, annexure a3 refers. since then he has been rendering his service as a casual labourer. as his services have not been regularised, the applicant has moved this o.a. seeking the reliefs extracted above. 3. respondents have contested this o.a. according to them, the applicant has not been made a full time casual labourer and as such the question of grant of temporary status of group d or regularisation does not arise. it has also been contented that according to the policy letter dated 12/04/1991, temporary status could be granted only for those full time casual labourers who have been in employment during and after 29/11/1989 vide annexure r1. according to annexure r2 and r3 also, the requirement was that one should be a full time casual labourer in september 1993. if at all the applicant could claim any concession for regularisation, etc., the same is in accordance with the provisions of recruitment rules 2002, which provides for 25% of vacancies remaining unfilled after recruitment of non-test category of employees, and in the priority, part time casual labourers of recruiting division come last. 4. respondents have further referred to the decision of the apex court in the case of state of karnataka vs. uma devi and devika guha vs. union of inida to substantiate their stand. decision of this tribunal in o.a. 738/03 has also been cited by the respondents in support of their case. 5. counsel for the applicant argued that the respondents have clearly spelt out the period from which the applicant had been performing 8 hours duty a day. vide annexure r6, it is from december 2001 onwards. as such it cannot lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that the applicant is a full time casual labourer. counsel for the respondents invited the attention of the tribunal to the policy letters at annexure r1 to r3 as well as recruitment rules and contended that the applicant's claim has to be considered only with reference to vacancies under the 25% quota wherein part time casual labourers enjoy only last priority. 6. arguments were heard and documents perused. undoubtedly, the applicant has been serving as a full time casual labourer since 2000 onwards. earlier also his service were enjoyed by the department but as a part time casual labourer. if the applicant has to be treated as a part time casual labourer, then his priority goes right from 1984 in which case, he should have been given regularisation much earlier even on the basis of the priority. but the claim of the applicant being a full time casual labourer, it has to be seen as to when from the applicant can be treated as a full time casual labourer. 7. undisputably, the applicant, even according to the respondents, having worked 8 hours a day from december 2001, it is declared that the applicant's services as a full time casual labourer reckon from december 2001. and, he is entitled to the benefit of regularisation available to such full time casual labourers in accordance with the rules with his seniority as december 2001. 8. in view of the above, the o.a. is allowed to the extent that the applicant is declared to have been a full time casual labourer since december 2001 and is entitled to all the benefits available for regularization of full time casual labourers with his seniority as of december 2001. respondents are directed to take necessary steps accordingly. 9. under these circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.
Judgment:

HON'BLE DR. K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Applicant in this case, a Casual Labourer with 8 hours duty, seeks the following reliefs:

a) To direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant with effect from 30/10/2000 in the Group D category and other consequential benefits thereof. and

b) Grant such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstance of the case may require.

2. Briefly stated, according to the applicant, he had entered the Railway Mail Service in January 1984 through Employment Exchange as a part time Watchman vide Annexure A1. He was later on granted full time status in October 2000, Annexure A3 refers. Since then he has been rendering his service as a Casual Labourer. As his services have not been regularised, the applicant has moved this O.A. seeking the reliefs extracted above.

3. Respondents have contested this O.A. According to them, the applicant has not been made a full time Casual Labourer and as such the question of grant of temporary status of Group D or regularisation does not arise. It has also been contented that according to the policy letter dated 12/04/1991, temporary status could be granted only for those full time Casual Labourers who have been in employment during and after 29/11/1989 vide Annexure R1. According to Annexure R2 and R3 also, the requirement was that one should be a full time Casual Labourer in September 1993. If at all the applicant could claim any concession for regularisation, etc., the same is in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment Rules 2002, which provides for 25% of vacancies remaining unfilled after recruitment of non-Test category of employees, and in the priority, part time Casual Labourers of Recruiting Division come last.

4. Respondents have further referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Devika Guha Vs. Union of Inida to substantiate their stand. Decision of this Tribunal in O.A. 738/03 has also been cited by the respondents in support of their case.

5. Counsel for the applicant argued that the respondents have clearly spelt out the period from which the applicant had been performing 8 hours duty a day. Vide Annexure R6, it is from December 2001 onwards. As such it cannot lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that the applicant is a full time Casual Labourer. Counsel for the respondents invited the attention of the Tribunal to the policy letters at Annexure R1 to R3 as well as Recruitment Rules and contended that the applicant's claim has to be considered only with reference to vacancies under the 25% quota wherein part time Casual Labourers enjoy only last priority.

6. Arguments were heard and documents perused. Undoubtedly, the applicant has been serving as a full time Casual Labourer since 2000 onwards. Earlier also his service were enjoyed by the Department but as a part time Casual Labourer. If the applicant has to be treated as a part time Casual Labourer, then his priority goes right from 1984 in which case, he should have been given regularisation much earlier even on the basis of the priority. But the claim of the applicant being a full time Casual Labourer, it has to be seen as to when from the applicant can be treated as a full time Casual Labourer.

7. Undisputably, the applicant, even according to the respondents, having worked 8 hours a day from December 2001, it is declared that the applicant's services as a full time Casual Labourer reckon from December 2001. and, he is entitled to the benefit of regularisation available to such full time Casual Labourers in accordance with the Rules with his seniority as December 2001.

8. In view of the above, the O.A. is allowed to the extent that the applicant is declared to have been a full time Casual Labourer since December 2001 and is entitled to all the benefits available for regularization of full time Casual Labourers with his seniority as of December 2001. Respondents are directed to take necessary steps accordingly.

9. Under these circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.