Shiv Poojan Yadav & Ors. vs Shri Vivek Agarwal & Ors.

“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.”

“5.

That the competent authority of department in compliance of order of this Hon'ble Tribunal consideredeach and every points and found that:-

i)

The applicants were engaged only for seasonal/intermittent work and were not performing work of regular nature.

ii) Their engagement was not continuous.

iii) They are not similarly situated to the applicants in OA No. 200/600/2017 decided by the CAT Jabalpur bench and

iv) They do not fulfill the eligibility conditions prescribed under DoPT O.M. dated 7.6.1988 for grant o wages at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance.

6- That after considering each and every points discussed above it is clear that the applicants are not similarly situated persons of OA decided by CAT, Jabalpur Bench then the competent authority of department rejected the request of applicants by detailed order dated 25.3.2026 and copy of the same were sent to applicants. The copy of detailed order dated 25.3.2026 in support of the said facts is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this affidavit.”

5.

That the contents of paragraph No.4 and 5 of the compliance affidavit are not correct as stated and hence denied. It is submitted that the observation of the respondents behind disputing the claim of the applicants are totally cryptic and non sparking. They have mainly raised four points in order to differentiate the claim of applicant to the applicants in Original Application No.600/2017 before Jabalpur bench of this Hon'ble Court. In the first point, it is alleged that the applicants were only for seasonal and intermittent work and not performing work of regular nature. It is submitted that the alleged contention of respondents was already raised in Original Application which has been considered in para 6 of counter affidavit. Similarly, the 2nd point that their engagement was not continuous is already find place in para 6 of counter affidavit. As regard to the point 3, the respondents have not mentioned any averment and also not bring on record the facts and grounds of dissimilarity. In the fourthpoint the only submission is made that the applicants do not fulfill eligibility condition in order to allow them wages @ 1/30th of pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale of Group-D DA as per Department of Personnel & Training Om dated 07.06.2008. It is once again submitted that this was one of the objection of the department in the counter affidavit, which also find place in para 6 of the judgment. Contrary to the same as stated above, all the applicants have worked for more than 10 years of period without any break. It is also submitted that all the applicants are working regularly since last many years and their duties and responsibilities are perennial in nature to the regularly appointed MTS. Thus, denying the legitimate claim of applicant without any substantial ground and by cryptic observations is completely illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that once having into consideration all these points, earlier raised in counter affidavit; to denying applicants claim on the same issues is a willful and deliberate disobedience, which bring the contemnor under the clutches of contempt of court and deserves for punishment. It is also submitted that in para 4 of the order, it is alleged that the applicant was engaged during the period of 2012-14 and working till 2014, however, in the counter affidavit, it is admitted fact of the respondents that the applicant has worked upto2017 and thereafter they are discontinued. It is submitted that Hon'ble Court having into consideration the interim order in Original Application 954/2018 dated 01.06.2018 has observed and in the same time, the Hon'ble Court has also observed that even the interim order was not granted, it is granted and only thereafter the matter was decided on its merit. The respondents did not bring on record any material fact in order to differentiate similarity in applicant working viz-a-via applicants No. 600/2017 in the Jabalpur bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal. The applicants has also inquired that they have better/longer working experience that the applicants in Original Application No.600/2017 in Jabalpur bench. Infact in the present case, the applicants/casual labourers as well as regular incumbent/MTS have working on the same site/places and in rotation they replied each other for the common work/duty charge along with taking and handing over of charges with regular incumbent