AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents were present at the time of hearing.
The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
“i.This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 09-10-2017, 19-12-2017 and tender quotation dated 28-02-2018 passed by respondent No. 1 and 3.
ii.This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the applicants to continuously work as casual labourer and he may be allowed the payment of salary @ 1/30th of pay + DA per month as per the DoP&T OM dated 07-06-1988 and OM issued by respondent No 1 dated 11-05-2009 and other service benefits for which the applicant is entitled as per government order time to time issued by Government of India.
ii.Any other relief, which this Hon’ble tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
iii.Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant was initially engaged as Casual (ward and watch) under the respondent No 3 at Lalitpur and was assigned the work and duties similar to the regular employees. Through this OA, he is challenging the order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the respondent no 3 through which it was decided that after 31st October, no daily wager worker would be kept on muster roll or bill roll. The applicant is also challenging the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the respondent no 3 through which representation of the applicant for granting him minimum wages @ 1/30th + DA in terms of the OA dated 07.04.1988 and circular issued by the DG, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi dated 07.07.1992 was rejected. The applicant is further challenging the tender quotation dated 28.02.2018 for engagement of person on contract / outsourcing basis in place of applicant who is regularly working for more than last many years under the direct engagement of the respondents’ department. By way of instant original application, the applicant has claimed that his case is squarely covered by several judicial pronouncements and thus has prayed that the OA be allowed with the relief sought.
Counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the applicant was intermittently engaged by the respondent no 3 as per exigencies of work. His engagement was purely casual and temporary in nature and his nature or work was not the same as that of regular employees working under the department.
Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated in the original application. The applicant has stated therein that his case is squarely covered by several judicial pronouncements made by various Courts across the country including the Apex Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially engaged as casual (ward and watch) labour under the respondent no 3 at Lalitpur. He was assigned the work and duties similar to the regular employees. Respondent no 2 issued a Circular dated 11.05.2009 directing all the circle branch of ASI that the casual workers who are performing duties similar to the regular employees may be paid wages @ 01/30th of pay scale + DA allowance. On 18.07.2017, the applicant and others being aggrieved by non follow of the policy for payment of wages in aforesaid terms, submitted a detailed representation. Learned counsel argued that in view of OM dated 07.06.1988 issued by DoPT, the Joint Director (Accounts), ASI issued letter dated 11.05.2009 observing the case employees similarly situated to the applicants. But still when no compliance was made, the applicant along with similarly situated persons, preferred writ petition no 24989/2017 before Lucknow Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. The said petition was disposed of by directing respondent no 3 to decide the representation of the applicant. In compliance, the respondent no 3 vide order dated 19.12.2017, rejected the case of the applicant on the ground that since his work was not of regular nature, he is not entitled for wages to be paid @ 1/30th + DA. Subsequently, vide order dated 28.02.2018, the respondent no 3 issued award of contract for providing 14 casual labourers for annual maintenance under the jurisdiction of sub circle Lalitpur.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the applicant and referring to the counter affidavit, he argued that when the applicant approached before the Tribunal, the limited direction which was given by the Tribunal was to decide the representation of the applicant. The same was decided by the respondents by way of a reasoned and speaking order. The claim of the applicant for wages to be paid @ 1/30th + DA is not liable to be accepted as the duties performed by him were not of regular nature and at par with duty performed by regular employee and therefore the same was rejected. In this regard, a reasoned and speaking order was passed and communicated to the applicant. In the same order dated 19.12.2017, issue of engagement of fresh casual labours was also discussed. Learned counsel argued that the applicant was purely engaged on temporary basis as casual labour and his services were liable to be disengaged / terminated at any point of time. Further, the engagement of new casual labours is made as per the direction of the competent authority and no irregularity can be attributed to the same. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made by the respondents’ counsel to dismiss the OA being devoid of merits.
Learned counsel for the applicant rebutted the pleadings of the counter affidavit and referring to the rejoinder affidavit, it was argued that the although the applicant was engaged by the department as casual labour, yet, since his engagement, he has been continuously working for 8 hours a day and performing the duties of a regular employee. Thus, as per the extant rules, he is entitled for the wages @ 1/30th of pay at the minimum pay scale + DA for working of 8 hours a day. Furthermore, recently the respondents have extended the same benefit in compliance of the order passed by Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in different OA. Learned counsel further argued that the Allahabad Bench of Tribunal has also extended such benefits to similarly situated candidates in its judgment and order passed in OA No 221 of 2019 (Shiv Poojan Yadav and Others Vs Union of India and others) and OA No 594 of 2018 (Anand Kumar and others Vs Union of India and others) and therefore similar benefit must be extended to the applicant herein as well. To further substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No 600 of 2017 titled Archaeological Survey of India Workers Union through its Secretary Deepak Raikwar and Another Vs Union of India and others (bunch cases).
I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records and carefully perused the case laws relied upon.
As the facts of the case have already been narrated above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The applicant was engaged as casual labour. Through the instant OA, he has challenged the order dated 09.10.2017 through which the competent authority of the respondents has directed to not enter the name of casual labours in the muster roll, order dated 19.12.2017 through which applicant’s prayer for payment of wages to be paid @ 1/30th + DA along with the prayer that fresh casual labours may not be engaged, has been rejected. Applicant has also pleaded for rejection of tender quotation dated 28.02.2018 through which fresh award of contract for providing 14 casual labours has been proposed.
The applicant has pleaded that although he was appointed as a casual labour, he has been working continuously on the post and performing duties of a regular employee for the period of eight hours a day. It is pertinent to record that the photocopy of the muster roll procured by the applicant under RTI (Annexed with the OA as Annexure A-7) and the duty chart dated 25.07.2016 annexed along with the representation dated 18.09.2017 (Annexed as Annexure A-4 to the OA) clearly reveals that the applicant’s name was recorded in the muster roll and he was allotted duties to the extent of about eight hours per day. Further, the contention of the respondents that the applicant was not performing the duties of a regular employee for the period of his engagement has not been substantiated by any reasonable oral or documentary evidence. Also, in the instant case, vide order dated 16.05.2018, interim protection was granted to the extent that respondents were directed to allow the applicant to continue the services and also that he will be given preference over juniors and fresh recruits from outsourcing, should the need arise. It is also pertinent to record that in the similar facts and circumstances as operating in the instant case, Original Application No 221 of 2019 and Original Application No 594 of 2018 were decided by this Tribunal through order dated 05.08.2025 and 24.13.2025 respectively. In those cases also, the applicants therein were casual labours in the respondents’ department and had claimed for granting the status of 1/30th of Pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale of Group D plus DA on the ground that they were performing the duties of a regular employee for eight hours per day. Vide the aforesaid judgment(s), the Tribunal had allowed the case. The operative portion of the judgment dated 05.08.2025 passed in OA No 221 of 2019 is quoted herein below:
“15.On the basis of above consideration, the OA deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 09-10-2017 and 12-12-2017 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the applicants continuous work and grant the status of 1/30th of pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale of a Group D plus DA to the applicants, if they are similarly situated to the persons in OA No.200/600/2017, decided by CAT Jabalpur bench, who have already been extended this status pursuance to the orders passed by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.”
Similarly, operative portion of the judgment dated 24.12.2025 passed in OA No 594 of 2018 is quoted herein below:
“10.On the basis of above consideration, the impugned order dated 09-10-2017 and 19-12-2017 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the applicants continuous work and grant the status of 1/30th of pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale of a Group D plus DA to the applicants, if they are similarly situated to the persons in OA No.200/600/2017, decided by CAT Jabalpur bench, who have already been extended this status pursuance to the orders passed by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.”
Also, since the aforesaid quoted judgments have been passed relying upon the judgment dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No 600 of 2017 titled Archaeological Survey of India Workers Union through its Secretary Deepak Raikwar and Another Vs Union of India and others (bunch cases), the operative portion of the said judgment is also quoted herein below for further clarity:
“Similarly, the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 17.10.2018 passed in Original Application No.063/00873/2017 has directed to grant the applicants therin pay in similar terms as granted to similarly placed persons i.e. 1/30th of pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale and other related benefits available under the policy. Subsequently, the coordinate Bench at Kolkata in O.A. No.350/00936/2019 (Obaidul Islam and others vs. Union of India and others) vide its order dated 11.11.2022 has issued certain guidelines to form a committee to consider the cases of employees working in ASI. In view of such position, learned counsel for the respondents appearing in Original Application No.477/2017 and other connected OAs filed before this Bench, had conceded that the respondent department has constituted a committee to examine the case of all workers demanding regularization under ASI in the light of Supreme Court judgment and the rules and regulations vide order dated 20.04.2023. He further averred that the committee constituted has to submit its recommendations to the DG ASI within three months and a policy decision has been taken to grant 1/30th status to all casual labours who were on muster rolls and for regularization a committee has been constituted which was communicated vide letter dated 29.05.2023. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents in the aforesaid OAs, those Original Applications were disposed of with the following directions:
“2.Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Coordinate Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.350/00936/2019 (Obaidul Islam and others vs. Union of India and others) vide its order dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure R/1) has issued certain guidelines to form a committee to consider the cases of employees working in ASI. In compliance of said order, the respondent-department has constituted a committee to examine the case of all workers demanding regularization under ASI in the light of Supreme Court judgment and the rules and regulations vide order dated 20.04.2023 (AnnexureR/2). Further it is submitted by the respondents that the committee constituted has to submit its recommendations to the DG ASI within three months and a policy decision has been taken to grant 1/30th status to all casual labours who were on muster rolls and for regularization a committee has been constituted which was communicated vide letter dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure R/3). 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants will be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider and decide their case for regularization along with other employees for which committee has already been constituted in a time bound manner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the Original Application is disposed of as per law in above manner. 5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, these Original Applications are disposed of at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, directing the competent authority of respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ case for regularization along with other employees, as per rules, within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of this order. For this purpose, applicants are directed to serve a copy of this order along with a copy of O.A. to respondent-authority.”
7.The issue regarding regularisation of the casual labourers/dail wagers working in ASI is no longer res integra as the same has already been decided by the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.340/2013 and subsequently by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.063/00873/2017, wherein while taking note of the fact that status of 1/30th of the pay has been granted to some similarly situated workers likewise the applicants therein, the Tribunal has directed to grant same status to the applicants. Similarly, when the same issue travelled to this Bench in OA No.477/2017 & other connected OAs, the same were disposed of with the consent of the parties vide order dated 24.01.2024 to consider and decide the case of the applicants therein, within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of the order. We have not been apprised by either of the sides as to what decision has been taken by the Committee in pursuance of orders passed by us as now the period of three months for compliance is already over and failing to do so shall always be a subject matter of contempt. The applicants have also filed copy of the chart (Annexure A-3 along with OA No.200/40/2019) to show that their engagement was for more than 240 days throughout the years. In any case, the fact of the matter remains that once the ASI has already extended the 1/30th status of similarly situated counterparts of the applicants working in the Circles other than Madhya Pradesh, it is incumbent upon them to grant similar benefits to the present applicants also. Hence, if the applicants are otherwise similarly placed to that who have been granted the status of 1/30th of pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale of a Group D plus DA, they are also entitled for the same treatment.
8.Accordingly, we dispose of all these Original Applications and direct the respondents to grant the status of 1/30th of pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale of a Group D plus DA to the applicants, if they are similarly situated to the persons, who have already been extended this status pursuance to the orders passed by the dif erent Benches of this Tribunal. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.”
Furthermore, the case of the applicant draws support from the Office Memorandum dated 04.09.2019 issued vide Letter No. 49014/1/2017-Estt.(C) Pt. by Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Government of India. The same is quoted below:
Thus, in view of the aforesaid quotation, I am of the considered opinion that the instant case of the applicant is liable to be allowed in view of the aforesaid quoted and discussed judgments and also in view of the DoPT OM dated 04.09.2019 which has also been quoted in the preceding paragraph. Further, since an interim relief vide order dated 16.05.2018 is operating in the instant case as respondents were directed to continue the services of the applicant and also that should the need arise, the applicant shall be given preference over any junior person or fresh recruits from outsourcing, the OA is allowed. The impugned orders dated 09.10.2017, 19.12.2017 and 28.02.2018 are quashed and set aside only to the extent that the respondents are hereby directed to grant the applicant wages at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum pay scale plus DA and other admissible benefits in terms of the relevant DoP&T OM after ensuring that the nature of work entrusted to the applicant was same as is entrusted to the regular employees, and the applicant’s engagement shall be continued. Respondents are further directed to take into consideration the fact that applicant being a casual labour cannot be replaced or substituted by another casual worker and it must be noted that his services cannot be discontinued or disengaged until and unless a regular incumbent joins the post. These directions must be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.