AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tashi Rabstan, J.â€"Both the writ petitions have been directed against the common judgment dated 14.11.2005 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, learned Tribunal,) in O.A. Nos. 862-JK and 863-JK of 2004 filed by the petitioners herein,
whereby the learned Tribunal while disposing of both the applications directed respondents 1 & 2 herein to consider the petitioners herein for
regular appointments as and when the vacancies arise. As common question of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, same have been
heard and considered together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts in brief are that the writ petitioners were initially
engaged as Daily Wagers between 1975 to 1989 and subsequently as Casual Workers. Thereafter they were conferred with the status of
Temporary Workers vide Office Memorandum dated 23.01.2001. In 1990 the respondents formulated a one-time Scheme, called ""Casual
Workers Absorption Scheme, 1990"" in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court in WP (Civil) No. 631/1998 for absorption of Casual
Workers as on 01.01.1990 in Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (for short, CSIR) and its Laboratories/Institutes.
In 1995, the respondents modified its earlier Scheme of 1990 in pursuance of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The object of revised
one-time Scheme, called ""Casual Workers Absorption Scheme of CSIR, 1995"" was to absorb Casual Workers in CSIR and its
Laboratories/Institutes.
It is contended by the petitioners that the respondents vide Circular dated 04.06.2001 invited applications from amongst the Temporary Status
Workers for filling up 58 various positions in Group II(I), 1(1) Group 'C' and 'D' (non-Technical) for absorption in Regional Research Laboratory,
Jammu under CSIR Workers Absorption Scheme of 1990 and 1995. However, out of 58 positions, services of only 8 persons came to be
regularized, that too having less qualification than the petitioners. It is further contended by the petitioners that they were informed by the
respondents that in view of changed eligibility criteria vide communication dated 22.07.1997 and a ban put on filling of the posts vide
communication dated 17.10.2001, they were not considered for absorption/regularization of their services against the available vacancies in Group
'C' and Group 'D' Categories.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 14.11.2005,
impugned herein, directed the respondents to consider the petitioners for regular appointments as and when the vacancies arise.
The stand of respondents is that the absorption was to the extent of available vacancies and further absorptions would be made as and when the
vacancies arise. Their further stand is that absorption/regularization of eight temporary workers was on the basis of their qualification, merit,
experience and performance in the interview. As there was no identified temporary status worker fulfilling the criteria fixed on the basis of
qualification prevailing as on 01.04.1990, therefore, recruitment in Groups 'C' and 'D' categories could not be made. Respondents in their reply
contended that all the identified workers are being absorbed against the available vacancies under the Scheme of 1990 and 1995 and till date 19
such workers fulfilling the requisite qualification applicable as on 01.04.1990 have been absorbed and no other worker was recruited against those
vacancies except the identified temporary status workers. Further, it is contended that in view of the ban on filling up of the posts, the temporary
status workers could not be considered for absorption/regularization of their services against the available vacancies in Group 'C' and Group 'D'
Categories.
The stand of petitioners is that the posts advertised vide Circular dated 04.06.2001 were meant for absorption of petitioners and other eligible
candidates identified under CSIR Workers Absorption Scheme of 1990 find 1995, but they have been ignored despite the existence of vacancies.
Their further stand is that they were also similarly situated to that of eight temporary workers, who have already been absorbed in pursuance of the
Scheme.
While referring to the objectives of the Scheme of 1990, Mr. Raina, learned senior counsel, argued that for getting the benefit of
regularization/absorption, the temporary worker had to be in position as on 1st day of January, 1990. He thus argued that as all the petitioners
were in position on the said date, they were entitled to be regularized/absorbed by appointment on the basis of the qualification for the respective
posts as on 01.01.1990. He further argued that the respondents, in order to oust the petitioners from the purview of the Scheme of 1990 and
1995, purposely enhanced the qualification vide Circular dated 04.06.2001, whereby 58 positions in Groups 'C' and 'D' were advertised for filling
up the vacancies in Regional Research Laboratory, Jammu under CSIR Workers Absorption Scheme of 1990 and 1995.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file.
The present controversy now stands narrowed down in view of the statement of learned counsel for respondents that the services of writ
petitioners have been regularized/absorbed by appointment vide different orders between 04.03.2005 to 03.11.2011.
Now the question arises for consideration is: whether the writ petitioners have a right for regularization/absorption of their services by
appointment with effect from 23.01.2002, i.e., when eight similarly situated persons came to be absorbed/regularized by appointment in pursuance
to Circular dated 04.06.2001 under CSIR Workers Absorption Scheme of 1990 and 1995.
Clause 6(a) of the Scheme of 1995 provided that ""regularization will be considered for the entry level posts of Group-C or Group-D in
technical or non-technical grade, as the case may be."" Whereas, Clause 6(b) provided that ""open recruitment for filling up entry level vacancies in
Groups 'C' & 'D' shall be banned till casual workers already engaged but satisfying the terms and conditions for regularization, are fully absorbed.
Admittedly, the Scheme of 1995 clearly provided that no open recruitment for filling up entry level vacancies in Group 'C' and Group 'D'
would be made till the casual workers already engaged are fully absorbed. Circular-in-question also shows that there were as many as 58 posts in
Group 'C' and Group 'D' (non-technical) as on 04.06.2001, out of which only 8 temporary workers have been absorbed under the Scheme of
1990 and 1995, leaving 50 vacancies unfilled, then how could the respondents take a stand that the absorption of writ petitioners would be made
as and when the vacancies arise. Further, the Circular-in-question was contrary to the regularization policy of 1990 and 1995, under which the
petitioners have a right to be considered for absorption by appointment on the basis of the qualification for the respective posts as on 01.01.1990.
Even communication dated 27.06.1994 addressed to the Director, Regional Research Laboratory, Jammu by the Deputy Secretary of CSIR
clearly reveals that 25 posts were available in 1994 in Group 'C' and Group 'D' Categories, wherein it was desired to fill-up those vacancies during
the currency of said year. Communication No. 17(65)/82-CTE(PPS)-Vol.-II dated 24.11.1982 on the subject ""New Recruitment and
Assessment Scheme in respect of Scientific and Technical Staff reveals that qualification of 8th standard has been prescribed for the post of Helper
in Group 1(1) and 1(2), whereas 10th standard has been prescribed for the posts of Fitter, Carpenter, Technician etc. Grade-II in Group II(I).
Thus, if we accept the communication dated 22.07.1997 clarifying the qualification criteria ""that the casual workers already identified for
absorption under the earlier Scheme of 1990 may be absorbed on the basis of the qualifications prescribed for recruitment to entry level posts in
Group 'C' and 'D' (S & T) and non-technical prior to 01.04.1990, even then it is not disputed by the respondents that the engagement of writ
petitioners as casual workers/daily wagers was prior to 01.04.1990. It is also not the case of respondents that the writ petitioners were lacking
qualification at the time of their initial entry.
We, therefore, after carefully perusing the documents annexed with the writ files and the averments made therein, are of the opinion that
enhancing the minimum qualification of entry level posts for absorption of the writ petitioners in Group ""C"" and Group 'D' Categories vide the
Circular-in-question is clearly against the spirit of the Scheme of 1990 and 1995, besides the same being discriminatory and arbitrary. In view of
the above backdrop, both the writ petitions merit to be allowed. Accordingly, the same are allowed along with connected CMA(S). Respondents
are directed to absorb/regularize the services of writ petitioners by appointment against their respective posts, to which they have now stand
appointed, with effect from 23.01.2002, i.e., when eight similarly situated persons came to be absorbed/regularized by appointment in pursuance
to Circular dated 04.06.2001. Respondents are further directed to create superannuation posts with effect from the same date for
regularization/absorption of those employees who have since been retired as per their seniority position, if the posts have already been filled up by
other persons. Respondents to accordingly release all consequential benefits, including monetary and service benefits, in favour of writ petitioners,
to which they are entitled to accordingly.