AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:
“8.i. under the facts and circumstances as stated above it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the relief sought for in this application shall not be granted and on perusal of the records and after hearing the parties on the cause or causes that may be shown be pleased to grant the following reliefs:-
ii.That the Hon'ble tribunal be pleased to set aside and quashed the impugned notice dated 01/01/2025 issued by the Superintending Archaeologist, Guwahati Circle, Guwahati.
ii(a) To direct the Respondents to continue the service of the applicants in their respective place with all service benefits like financial and continuity of service.
iii.To frame a scheme to absorb the petitioners regular vacant post in accordance with law.
iv.Cost of the application
v.Any other relief to which the applicants are entitled as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Applicants were appointed as daily wage labourers during the period from 2009 to 2017 at Camp Surya Pahar under the Guwahati Circle. Since their appointments, the petitioners have been working continuously without any break. Their engagement was based on the needs of the respondent authorities, who have consistently availed the services rendered by the petitioners. However, on 01/01/2025, authorities issued a notice to the petitioners stating that their engagement as casual workers would be discontinued with effect from 01/02/2025. Hence, this O.A.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned notice of closure dated 01.01.2025 does not indicate any reasons or allegations. The department has also paid them wages on daily basis for the services rendered thereby creating an employee and employer relationship and instead of terminating them, they could legally formulated a scheme to regularize and absorb the petitioners pursuant to a process as contemplated. Such termination or closure without after giving unblemished service without any reason is arbitrary.
Learned counsel also avers that the Circular dated 03.12.2024 and O.M. dated 13.12.2020 whereby the department cited in the impugned order, nowhere speaks about termination of service of casual workers those who are already engaged in different sites of the monuments but speaks that no casual labours shall be engaged by the authority of Archaeological Survey of India then forth. In the instant case, the applicants were engaged much more before issuance of Circular dated 03.12.2024 and O.M. dated 13.12.2020 and, hence, termination of service of the applicants on the basis of Circular dated 03.12.2024 and O.M. dated 13.12.2020 is arbitrary, malafide, illegal, unjust, improper and unreasonable.
The department has allowed to continue the service of similarly situated persons even junior to the applicants and have given notice to the petitioners in a pick and choose manner purportedly and applicants have been treated dissimilarly which is not permissible in the eye of law and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, hence, the Impugned termination notice dated 01.01.2025 issued to each of the applicants are bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashed.
Respondents have filed their reply wherein they have stated that applicants were engaged by the Archaeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle based on availability of work, and the applicants were engaged locally between 2009 to 2017. The impugned notice dated 01.01.2025 was issued by the Superintending Archaeologist of Archaeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle in conformity with the Government of India's outsourcing policy and the General Financial Rules. Wages for the notice period were duly paid to the applicants.
The casual labourers were engaged strictly against approved estimates under Annual Maintenance works, subject to availability of funds under the respective sub-heads. These engagements were specific and temporary in nature, with workers liable to be disengaged upon the completion of the work for which they were engaged. Fresh estimates were prepared subsequently, based on necessity and availability of funds in each financial year. The nature of work entrusted to these casual workers was casual and intermittent. Considering repeated instructions from the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) regarding the discontinuation of casual labour engagement, and written instructions issued by the ASI Headquarters several times, in conformity with the Government of India's outsourcing policy and the General Financial Rules, closure notices were issued to the applicants by the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI Guwahati Circle, on 01.01.2025.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the applicants are not eligible for regularization as per the extant rules and instructions in force. That Regularization to Casual Labors can only be granted either under DOPT's Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme dated 10.09.1993, or under the parameters set by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India in Uma Devi case and DoPT instructions on the matter. Applicants, when assessed for coverage under 1993 scheme, is noted that none of the applicant was in engagement of the ASI on the crucial date, i.e. 01.09.1993, and as such was not covered under the scheme. It is further noted that the applicants do not fulfil the parameters set in Uma Devi judgment for consideration to grant regularization since the petitioner's appointment was not authorised and was based on temporary requirement and were never meant to be regularised.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and pleadings.
Applicants were engaged as casual labourers on daily wage basis between 2009-2017 strictly against approved estimates under Annual Maintenance works, subject to availability of funds under the respective sub-heads with specific and temporary in nature, with workers liable to be disengaged upon the completion of the work for which they were engaged and fresh estimates were prepared subsequently, based on necessity and availability of funds in each financial year. The Respondents vide impugned notice dated 01.01.2025 had issued order for closure and their service to be terminated w.e.f. 01.02.2025 in terms of the Circular. Being aggrieved of the impugned notice, applicants approached this Tribunal but this Tribunal neither interfered nor given any interim relief.
It is not the case of the applicants that their services were terminated and were replaced by another set of workers replacing them. It is categorically stated that they were engaged based on the availability of work and liable to be disengaged upon the completion of work. So we cannot direct the respondents to re-engage the applicants when there is no work available for them to perform. However, in case, in future they need any work for casual engagement, priority may be given to the present applicants considering their experience.
The O.A is disposed of. No costs.