AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Application to condone the delay of 06 days in preferring this Special Appeal is not opposed and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay Condonation Application stands disposed of.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India-appellants and Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.
This Special Appeal is preferred against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2814 of 2017 dated 13.09.2019. In the said order, the learned Single Judge noted the submission, urged on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, that, though the respondent-writ petitioner was working in the department, he was not paid salary since 16.12.2018. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that the learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, on the basis of instructions received by him, had stated that the Union of India had framed a policy whereby Daily Wager Scheme had been done away with and those working as daily-wagers would now have to apply through an outsourcing agency, but the respondent-writ petitioner was adamant that he will not apply through an outsourcing agency.
The learned Single Judge, thereafter, held that a bare perusal of the record revealed that the respondent-writ petitioner was not working as a daily-wager, rather he was working as 1/30th status labour, and, as an interim measure, directed that the respondent-writ petitioner should be permitted to work as 1/30th status labour and should be paid due remuneration as was being paid earlier.
While a counter affidavit was filed in the Writ Petition, by the appellant herein as early as on 30.10.2017, the contents of the said counter affidavit have not been considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the interlocutory order under appeal; and the said order appears to have been passed only on the basis of instructions.
As against the contention, urged on behalf of the Union of India-appellants, that the respondent-writ petitioner was hitherto engaged as a daily-wager and, on abolition of the said scheme, was not entitled to be continued at all, the learned Single Judge has, in the order under appeal, opined that he was not a daily-wager but was working as a 1/30th status labour. The order under appeal does not assign reasons for such a conclusion.
While Mr. M.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, states that the respondent-writ petitioner has been continuously working with the appellants, Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India-appellants, would contend that the respondent-writ petitioner's services have been disengaged consequent on the abolition of the Daily Wager Scheme from December, 2018; and he was offered to have his services engaged through an outsourcing agency, which he has not accepted.
As the contents of the counter-affidavit have not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the interlocutory order under appeal, we consider it appropriate to set-aside the said order and to restore the I.A. to file.
Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, states that a rejoinder affidavit would be filed within two weeks from today. It is open to either of the parties to request the learned Single Judge to hear the I.A, or the main Writ Petition itself, any day after two weeks from today.
The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.