P.U. Mallika vs Union Of India & Ors.

The petitioner was admittedly engaged as casual labourer in the services of the respondents in the year 1991; thereafter, granted “temporary status” with effect from 01.09.1993. Her grievance is that she was never offered regularization until she ceased to be in service in the year 2013; and asserts that, hence, she had no other option but to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam (CAT) seeking such relief.

Sri.K Ravi (Pariyarath) - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, when his client was in service continuously from the year 1991 till 2013, she became entitled to the benefit of regularization, as postulated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [2006 (4) SCC 1]. He contended that the respondents were obliged, under the afore binding precedent, to have conducted an enquiry qua the persons eligible for regularization, but that it has never been done; and resultantly that his client was left high and dry, even though she had worked continuously for twenty years and more. He prayed that, therefore, the final order of the learned Tribunal, which has dismissed the original application of his client, be set aside and the reliefs sought by her be granted.

Smt.O.M.Shalina -Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), countered the afore submissions, saying that this is not a case where the petitioner had approached any judicial forum before she had ceased to be in service. She contended that, even going by Umadevi (supra), there was no obligation on the Department to have conducted any kind of enquiry and that this was a discretion available with it, as a one time measure. She argued that, when there were no posts available in the services and when the petitioner admits that she was appointed initially as a casual labourer, then having been granted temporary status with effect from 01.09.1993 under a Scheme, she cannot seek regularization as a matter of right. She explained that this is more so because, as has also been found by the learned Tribunal, there were two other Schemes for regularization propounded by the respondents when the petitioner was in service, but that she was not eligible for want of qualification and requisite physical attributes. She then pointed out that, in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal also has found factually that the regularization of the petitioner and other similarly placed persons were considered at the relevant time, but that they were incapacitated from being offered such for the afore reasons; and hence that the present attempt is untenable.

We have evaluated the rival submissions of the parties, on the touch stone of the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.

It is rather crucial that the petitioner herself admits that she had ceased to be in service in the year 2013, but had approached the learned Tribunal only in the year 2019 seeking “retrospective” regularization. The edifice of her claim is that a person by name “Kathireshan” - who was also earlier a casual employee, with temporary status having been given on 01.09.1993 - was offerred regular status, even after he died by treating it as a “posthumous regularization”.

We are at a loss to understand how a person could have been given “posthumous regularization”; and can only construe that, for some reason, the afore mentioned individual had been granted retiral benefits, construing him to have been regularised while he was in service. We do not know under what manner this was done; and it is admitted by the petitioner herself that this was not under a Scheme or any such.

Even assuming that the aforementioned Shri.Kathireshan had been given such “regularisation”, it would not be prudent or available to this Court to direct the respondents to do so qua others, when there are no provisions of law supporting such a course.

That apart, when the petitioner unequivocally admits that she has “retired” from service in the year 2013, there was no question of any regularization having been offered to her in a retrospective manner, on a plea that she has raised in the year 2019. Of course when we say this, we are fully cognizant of the submissions of Sri.K.Ravi - learned counsel for the petitioner, that his client had been approaching the respondents for the relief while she was in service, but not granted.

The surviving issue is whether there was a duty on the respondents to have mandatorily conducted an enquiry for the purpose of regularization under the mandate of Umadevi (supra). We cannot find any such obligation having been cast upon any Department, but it would have been certainly open to the petitioner to approach a competent judicial forum to seek that such be done under its purlieus. When the petitioner concedes she has not done so, but had approached the learned Tribunal only in the year 2019, namely six years after her retirement, we cannot find her claim to be worthy of consideration or grant.

In the afore circumstances, we obtain no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Tribunal; and consequently dismiss this Original Petition.

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 21.07.2015.

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER WITH NO. 40/94 ,GRANTING TEMPORARY STATUS W.E.F 1.09.93 TO THE PETITIONER , UNDER THE CAUSAL LABOURERS ( GRANT OF TEMPORARY STATUS AND REGULARISATION )SCHEME , DATED 11.03.94.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF TEMPORARY STATUS , CASUAL LABOURERS AS ON 01.01.98

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF TEMPORARY STATUS CASUAL LABOURERS AS ON 01.01.05

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING ORDER ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXERCISE AND SERVICE TAX , THRISSUR DIVISION , DATED 28.06.2013.

Annexure R I COPY OF LETTER F. NO. C-18013/25/2018-AD.III(B0, DATED ON 08.05.2019 OF CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS.

Annexure M.A 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. NO. 177/2019 DATED 09.09.2020.

Annexure M A R I TRUE COPY OF THE SPEAKING ORDER DATED 30.07.21.

Annexure R 1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD , DATED 26.11.21.

Annexure R 2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DOP &T AS PER NOTE F NO 18013/25/2018/AD .III B, DATED 24.04.22.

Annexure R3 TRUE COPY OF DOPTS ID NOTE NO. 2394452/21/CR REJECTING THE PROPOSAL OF CBIC, DATED 01.06.22.

Annexure RA1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CAT IN O.A. NO. 177.2019 , DATED 09.09.20.

Annexure RA 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CAT IN M.A. NO. 406/21 & M.A. NO. 488/21 IN O.A NO. 177/19 DATED 12.10.21

Annexure RA 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CAT IN M.A NO. 406/21 IN O.A. NO. 177/19 DATED 22.11. 22

Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WITH . NO. 180/ 00177/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, DATED 28.02.19.

Exhibit P2 M.A FILED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN PREFERRING THE O.A. NO. 177/2019, DATED 28.02.19.

Exhibit P3 REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 21.06.2019.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. NO. 177/2019 DATED 09.09.2020.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A FILED SEEKING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER PASSED IN O.A. NO. 177/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE C.A.T , DATED 06.06.21.

Exhibit P6 M.A FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO CLOSE M.A. 406/2021 IN O.A. NO. 177/2019, DATED 12.08.21.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN M.A NO. 406/21 & M.A NO. 488/21 IN O.A. NO. 177/2019 DATED 12.10.21.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF COMPLIANCE REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 16.11.22.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CAT IN M.A. NO. 406/21 IN O.A. NO. 177/2019, DATED 22.11.22.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF REVIEW APPLICATION WITH M.A TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN PREFERRING THE REVIEW APPLICATION, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.A. NO. 406/2021 IN O.A. NO. 177/2019, DATED 26.02.24.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN M.A. NO. 265/24 ALONG WITH RA NO. 7/2024 IN M.A. NO. 406 /2021 IN O.A. NO. 177/2019, DATED 19.07.24.