AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Mr. S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. D.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
Learned counsel for the applicant states the applicant was initially engaged as a casual labour on the post of Driver in the ofce of General Manager, Telecom, District (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) Agra, in the month of January 1988 and worked up to August 1990 and paid salary regularly. The total number of days comes to 467. During this period an ofce memorandum was issued on 07.11.1989 by the Government of India for grant of Temporary Status to all casual labourers who had rendered a continuous service of at least one year. Another ofce order was issued on 29.09.2000 which provided for regularization of all casual labourers including those who have been granted Temporary Status as also who have not been granted Temporary Status.
On 14.08.2001 Assistant General Manager (Establishment) ofce of the Chief General Manager U.P. (West) Telecom Circle, Dehradun wrote to G.M.T.D. Aligarh, where the applicant is currently working, seeking details of the applicant's engagement since January 1988 on a prescribed proforma. Thereafer, on 12.09.2001 Sri I.S. Pangati, Assistant General Manager (Establishment) Ofce of the Chief General Manager U.P. (West) Telecom Circle Dehradun wrote to G.M.T.D. Aligarh with regard to the regularization of the applicant and also informed that the T.S.M. status has already been sanctioned on 28.09.2000. On 12.11.2001 Assistant General Manager (Administration) Aligarh wrote back to the Chief Accounts Ofcer, Agra with regard to verifcation of the number of working days of the applicant. Reminders were also sent to the Assistant General Manager Telecom (Administration) on 28.02.2002 and 18.09.2002. The matter was again referred to the ofce of the Chief General Manager Telecommunications (West) U.P. Telecom Circle, Dehradun who in its turn again turned down the matter and wrote in a very stern tone.
On 15.06.2006 Assistant General Manager ofce of Chief General Manager Telecom U.P. (West) Circle Meerut wrote/sought an explanation from General Manager Telecom District Aligarh stating therein that the applicant has worked in his ofce from February, 1997 to May, 2001 but he has not been given the status T.S.M. On 19.01.2007 Assistant General Manager (Administration) Aligarh wrote to the Assistant General Manager ofce, Chief General Manager, Telecom U.P. (West) Circle, Meerut, since only 87 posts were sanctioned of which 84 persons have been appointed and in the list of those 87 persons the name of the applicant did not fgure due to non-verifcation of working days, therefore he could not be considered. The applicant again represented his case on 15.03.2007 and gave the details of his work etc. It was specifcally mentioned that one Sri Sudhir Johnson had been regularized way back in April 2006.
The applicant wrote a letter to the Ofce who in turn sought an explanation and what transpired in between is unknown to the applicant but on 16.03.2007 Assistant General Manager Telecom (Establishment) sent a letter to Assistant Director General, General (Personal-4)New Delhi seeking direction, stating therein that the inquiry into the matter has been conducted by G.M.T.D. Aligarh and although the working of the applicant from the ofce of Chief Accounts Ofcer, Agra has not yet been verifed but the working of the applicant in the ofce of General Manager Telecom, District Aligarh having been verifed and as per the D.T.S .letter dated 29.09.2000 the applicant is eligible for being considered for granting T.S.M.status but since by letter dated 17.05.2006 it has been directed that as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court nobody has to be regularized. The Assistant Director General (Personal-4) sought an explanation from the Chief General Manager B.S.N.L. U.P. (West) Circle, Meerut as to who were the ofcers who have appointed the applicant and as to what action has taken against them it was further directed to submit a report with regard to the regularization of the applicant.
On 30.05.2007, Assistant General Manager (Administration) Ofce of General Manager Telecom District Aligarh asked the applicant to submit details as to who has appointed the applicant and ofce order in this regard. The applicant again made representation on 14.06.2007 to the General Manager, Telecom, District Aligarh and same is still pending in the ofce of General Manager, Telecom District Aligarh. On 17.07.2007, the Assistant General Manager (Administration) Aligarh wrote to the ofce of Chief General Manager U.P. (West) Circle Meerut and in reply thereto the General Manager Telecom District submitted that one of the Ofcers who has appointed the applicant initially has expired and the other ofcer has already retired from Uttaranchal Circle, it was further clarifed that since no post is vacant in Driver category and the applicant can be regularized on group D post and further the aforesaid reply being given afer being approved by the General Manager Telecom District Aligarh.
The applicant further submits that afer serving for such a long period, the applicant is neither being granted temporary status and as per the orders of the Government of India nor the applicant is being regularized and thereby afecting the Civil Rights of the applicant, while the junior to the applicant has already been regularized but the applicant still casual labourer and in fact the temporary status so granted to the applicant vide letter dated 28.09.2000 as stated in the letter dated 12.09.2001, the applicant is not being able to receive the fruits of T.S.M. Thereafer, for his grievance for grant of temporary status as well as for regularization of services the applicant has fled a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55379 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 20.08.2010 passed the following order:-
“The petitioner claims a certain status of appointment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. The said organization is already notifed under Section 19 of the Administration Tribunals Act and therefore the learned counsel prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition to enable him to fle petition before the Tribunal.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. ”
Thereafer, the services of the applicant were disengaged as casual labour/casual Driver in the month of December, 2007 without giving any notice. Hence, the applicant has fled the present OA with the following relief:-
“(a) Issue an order or direction directing and commanding the respondent No.3 and 4 to grant temporary status to the applicant from the date applicant qualify for grant of temporary status.
(b) Issue an order or direction directing and commanding the respondent No.2 and 3 to regularize the services of the applicant as junior to the applicant has already been regularized before the year 2007.
(c) Issue an order or directing/ commanding the respondent No.2 and 3 to take back in service to the applicant.
(d) Issue any other which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem ft and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case.
(3) Award cost of the original application from the contesting respondents.”
On notice, learned counsel for the respondents fled counter reply and stated that the applicant had neither worked as casual labour/Driver in the ofce of General Manager, Telecom District Agra nor in Aligarh for the period from January, 1988 to August,1990. The certifcate annexed by the applicant is false and fabricated. The scheme for grant of temporary status does not support the claim/interest of the applicant as he was not working with the department on 27.09.1989 and before. It has also been clearly mentioned in para 5 of this scheme that ‘No casual labour who has been recruited afer 30.03.1985 should be granted temporary status without specifc approval from this ofce”. The said scheme was a one-time program and it was not an ongoing scheme as it has been held by Hon’ble Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohan Lal.
The applicant did not represent properly through GMTD, Aligarh. He mislead the authorities by concealing the fact regarding his working days certifcate from January 1988 to August 1990 working with GMTD, Agra as afer verifcation the same found false, forged and fabricated. The case of Mr. Sudhir Johnson is quite diferent from the applicant as Mr. Sudhir has been working as casual labour with the department from January 1987 under AE Project, Kanpur. The working period of the applicant in the ofce of GMTD, Aligarh, only, is not sufcient for grant of TSM status. The A.D.G. (Personnel-4) Corporate Ofce, New Delhi has also clarifed in its letter dated 23.04.2007 that the post of Driver is a post in Group ‘C’ and a person working on a Group ‘C’ post can not be regularized on the post of Group ‘D’. The said scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization was issued for Group ‘D’ cadres only.
The representation of the applicant is false, baseless and is beyond the facts. Applicant is no longer in service of respondents and has been disengaged w.e.f. 26.08.2006 due to non availability of work as the vehicle on which he was working, has been scrapped. It has also been provided in the said scheme that the service of casual labourer may be dispensed on the ground of non-availability of work. The letter of Chief Account Ofcer, Ofce of GMTD Agra does not verify the working days of the applicant as there was no record available in the ofce.
Learned counsel for the applicant has fled rejoinder and reiterated the facts as stated in the Original Application.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the pleadings available on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to letter No. 269-94/98 S.T.N.-11 dated 29.09.2000 issued by department of Telecom Services, Sanchar Bhawan New Delhi laying down the procedure for regularization of casual labourers, wherein decision has been conveyed to regularize all the casual labour working in the department including those who have been granted temporary status with efect from 01.10.2000 as per the the priority order described therein. This scheme is an extension of the earlier scheme of 01.08.1998 as per which casual labour, who have put in 240 days or more of service are eligible to be considered for grant of temporary status.
Learned counsel further pleads that vide letter dated 24.08.2004 placed at page - 63 of the OA, BSNL has certifed that the applicant had worked as casual Driver for a total of 1547 days between February,1997 to May, 2001. Therefore, in terms of the respondents own documents the applicant is entitled to be given temporary status in terms of letter dated 29.09.2000.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has raised the objection of limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
In response to this, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has approached the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court vide their order dated 20.08.2010 had given liberty to the applicant to fle the petition before the Tribunal. The order of the Hon’ble High is quoted in Para-7 supra.
This order was passed on 20.08.2010 and the applicant had approached this Tribunal on 25.10.2010, hence there is no delay in the matter.
Learned counsel for the respondents had stated that the certifcates annexed by the Applicant are forged and in this regard a letter dated 16.09.2004 from Assistant General Manager (Administration) B.S.N.L.Agra along with the report of Chief Accounts Ofcer (TA) BSNL, Agra (Annexure CR-2) had also been issued. The respondents have clarifed that the applicant had neither worked as casual labour/Driver in the ofce of General Manager, Telecom District Agra nor at Aligarh for the period from January, 1988 to August, 1990 and the certifcate alleged by the applicant is false and fabricated, hence, the case of the applicant falls fat.
As may be seen from the above discussion, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the documents submitted by the applicant were found to be false and fabricated. He further stressed upon the fact that the policy for grant of temporary status issued vide letter dated 29.09.2000 was a one-time scheme and its beneft cannot be extended on date. It is also seen that the applicant has been out of employment for the last 15 years and BSNL’s policies have undergone metamorphic changes during this period. Taking an overall view of all the facets of the case and at this late a stage, it is not feasible to grant any relief as prayed for by the applicant. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.