Bimal Dey and Others vs Food Corporation of India and Others

Manisana, J.—These five writ petitions namely, Civil Rule Nos. (sic) (SH)/89, 11 SH/89, 41(SH)/89, 42(SH)/89, 43(SH)/89, are disposed of by this common Judgment as the question of facts and law raised in these petitions are similar.

The case of the five Petitioners, namely, (1) Bimal Dey, (2) Fuizur Rahman, (3) Smti Panchara bali Basfor, (4) Biju Deb and (sic) Harendra Chakravorty is that they have been working as daily (sic) casual labour in the Food Corporation of India, for short, the FCI'', They are unskilled labourers, They were engaged thus, final Dey as water carrier from 17.12.82; Faizur Rahman as messenger from 30.11.83; Smti Pancham bali as sweeper from 1.4.85; Biju (sic) aS water carrier from 7.2.87 and Harendra Chakravorty as messenger from 7.8.86.

The plea of the Petitioners is that notwithstanding the fact that they have put in continuous service for a quite long period, they have not been treated as temporary servant and were applied discriminatory wages. The Petitioners submitted representation to the Respondents for their regularization, but to no avail. Although five persons named in the writ petitions, who were appointed later than the Petitioners to the similar posts held by the Petitioners, have been regularized, the Petitioners have been denied. The Petitioners stated that they are still in their services.

Mr. R.K. Purkayastha, learned Counsel for the FCI, has contended that the present dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal u/s 14(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1983 and therefore, the petitions under Articles 226 of the Constitution are not maintainable.

The question which arises for consideration is whether are employee of the FCI seeking regularization of his service in the FCI will be governed by Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

The FCI is a statutory body established u/s 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. A rending of Food Corporation Act makes it clear that the FCI is a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government. u/s 12 of the Food Corporation Act, the officers and employees of the FCI (other than Secretary of the FCI) are to be appointed by the Corporation.

Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides:

14(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except) the Supreme Court in relation to--

(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being in either case, a post filled by a civilian;

(b) all service matters concerning--

(i) a member of any All-India Service ; or

(ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in Clause (c)] appointed any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union ; or

(iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in Clause (c)] appointed to any defence service or a post connected with defence and pertaining to the service of such member, person (sic) civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union (sic) any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India of any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government ;

(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause

(ii) or Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) being a person whose services have been, placed by o State Government or any local or other authority or any Corporation (or society) or other body at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment.

(emphasis added)

On reading of Section 14(1)(b), in so far as it relates to a Corporation it shows that the Administrative Tribunal shall have it jurisdiction in relation to all service matters concerning any of the civil servants falling under any of Sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) and pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Corporation owned or controlled by the Government.

It has already been stated that the FCI is a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government. It is also assumed that the regulation of service of an employee of the FCI is within the meaning of "service matter" as is defined u/s 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. But, such a regularization by the FCI will not come within any of the sub-clauses of Section 14(1)(b) for the following reasons. After the regularization, although the service of the Petitioners pertains to the service in connection with the affairs of the Corporation, any of them is not a member of All-India Service under Sub-clause (i) or, a person appointed in civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union under Sub-clause (ii), or, a civilian appointed to any defence service or a post connected with defence under Sub-clause (iii). Therefore, the contention of Mr. Purkayastha cannot be accepted.

Coming to the case on hand, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P and T Department Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Ram Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 904 we direct the Respondents to regularize the service, of the Petitioners, which services would be suitable to them, within a period of three (3) months from today. If there was any break in their services, it would be deem that there was no break.

With the aforesaid observations and direction the writ petition are allowed and disposed of.

No costs.