Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989 – Regularization – Casual workers – Conferment of temporary status – Committee constituted for verification of service records found that respondent did not fulfil the eligibility criteria – Challenged by respondent – Petitions dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal – Order set aside by High Court, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication – Tribunal ordered respondent’s regularization – Writ petition filed by appellant, dismissed by High Court – Review Petition – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Conclusion drawn by the High Court and the Tribunal favouring the respondent is contrary to the factual finding recorded by the Committee – Committee Report disclosed that the respondent failed to produce records in original to support his claim – Certificates were issued by unauthorised persons and the authenticity of such documents were not established – Respondent was required to have been engaged for 240 days in a given calendar year however, he had served for a maximum of 38 days in a calendar year and was ineligible – Further, period of engagement spreading across several calendar years (and not one year as mandated under the Scheme) could not have been accepted by treating the gaps in service over those years, as artificial breaks – Impugned judgments and orders are quashed – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – s.22(3).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In order to secure the benefit of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989, it was necessary for the respondent to establish that he satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Scheme and had worked for at least 240 days in 12 months. The Committee clearly recorded that the respondent “has completed maximum 38 days in 12 calendar months during 1.1.1995 to 31.12.1995 and as such the applicant is not entitled to grant of temporary status as per the provisions of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989.” Although this categorical finding of the Committee was noted both by the Tribunal as also by the High Court, regularization was surprisingly ordered for the respondent. For the contrary finding, the Tribunal did not make any inquiry or record any evidence, in terms of the remand order dated 19.3.2013 of the High Court in the earlier round. The conclusion is drawn without any material foundation. The conclusion drawn by the High Court and by the Tribunal favouring the respondent is contrary to the factual finding recorded by the Committee on 29.8.2005. The Committee Report also discloses that the Applicant had failed to produce records in original, to support his claim. The Committee further noted that certificates were issued by unauthorised persons and the authenticity of such documents have not been established. [Paras 16, 18 and 19][888-F-G; 889-D-G]
1.2 Clause 5(i) of the 1989 Scheme prescribed the requirements for conferring temporary status to casual workers. The clause makes it clear that the Applicant was required to have been engaged for 240 days in a given calendar year. The Committee’s findings showed that the respondent had served for a maximum of 38 days in a calendar year and was ineligible. The Tribunal in its order (25.8.2015) relied upon the judgement in Uma Devi to consider the service period during 1989 to 1998, to compute 240 days of engagement. However, this manner of considering eligibility does not gain support from the ratio in Uma Devi. The ratio of the said judgment was concerned with irregular appointments, which issue however is not very relevant in this matter. Furthermore, the ratio does not lay down a ten-year service yardstick for determining the eligibility of casual workers, as has been understood by the Tribunal. As such, the period of engagement spreading across several calendar years (and not one year as mandated under the Scheme) could not have been accepted by treating the gaps in service over those years, as ‘artificial breaks’. This manner of computation is inconsistent with the diktat of Uma Devi as well as the prescribed criteria governing the Respondent. It is also seen that the Tribunal in its order (22.01.2010), while dismissing the regularisation claim of the respondent amongst other applicants, had noted the admission therein that they had not satisfied the requirement of engagement of 240 days in any year. It was finally held that the applicants had failed to establish any infirmity in the Committee’s findings. The above order of the Tribunal was interfered with and remanded by the High Court. The impugned judgments dated 31.5.2018 and 4.6.2019 of the High Court as also the order dated 25.8.2015 of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 30/2009 are found to be unsustainable. The same are accordingly set aside and quashed. [Paras 20-23][889-G-H; 890-B-D]
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1: [2006] 3 SCR 953 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.