Union of India and Others vs Ganga Ram and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The Union of India and others have filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure

P3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') whereby O.A. No.

93/PB/2011 filed by Ganga Ram (respondent No. 1 herein) has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to grant wages of casual full-

time Chowkidar to respondent No. 1 (however, the arrears have been restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application) and

further to consider his case for regularization against sanctioned post whenever became available as per his seniority, in terms of the Instructions

dated 11.12.2006 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) on the basis of the

judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, within a period of

three months. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order.

Undisputedly, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Part-time Chowkidar on 12.05.1995 at Sub Post Office, Nawanshahr by Superintendent of

Post Office, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (petitioner No. 3 herein). As per the terms and conditions of the appointment, he was appointed on

contract basis and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. Even though in the said letter the appointment of

respondent No. 1 was described as Part-time but it is undisputed fact that he had performed his duties for more than 8 hours a day. Undisputedly,

respondent No. 1 is continuously working as such with the petitioner department.

In the year 1991, vide Memorandum dated 12.4.1991, the petitioners formulated a Scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary

Status) Scheme, according to which Temporary Status was to be conferred on all casual labourers who were in employment as on 29.11.1989

and were in continuous employment thereafter. Undisputedly under the said Scheme all such Part-time Chowkidars, who were engaged prior to

1993, had been conferred the benefit of temporary status and subsequently regularized as Group ''D'' employees. However, respondent No. 1

was not conferred the temporary status because he was appointed in the year 1995. In spite of the fact that till date respondent No. 1 is

continuously working as such with the petitioner Department, he has not been granted the wages of full-time Chowkidar and his services were not

regularized, therefore, he filed the aforesaid O.A. before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by respondent No. 1 and objections raised by the petitioners, allowed the O.A. and held

that respondent No. 1 who has been working for more than 8 hours a day is to be treated as full-time Chowkidar and he is entitled to wages of

full-time Chowkidar. It has been held that the issue with regard to treating such part-time Chowkidars as full-time Chowkidars is covered by

number of decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Rattan Chand v. Union of India and another (O.A. No. 822/HP/1998 decided on 15.5.2000);

Puran Chand v. Union of India and another (O.A.No. 1084/HP/1994 decided on 29.10.1996) and Narain Singh v. Union of India and another,

(O.A. No. 861/CH/1999 decided on 25.4.2000) and accordingly the petitioners were directed to grant wages of casual full-time Chowkidar to

respondent No. 1 and the arrears were restricted to three years prior to the filing of the O.A. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not

controvert the aforesaid legal position. In view of the fact that respondent No. 1 has been working for more than 8 hours a day as Chowkidar of

the petitioner Department, he is entitled to the wages of casual full-time Chowkidar. Thus, in our opinion the Tribunal has rightly granted the said

benefit to respondent No. 1 while restricting his claim to three years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner hotly contested the second direction issued to the petitioners by the Tribunal, i.e. to consider the case of

respondent No. 1 for regularization in terms of the Instructions dated 11.12.2006 based on the judgment in Umadevi''s case (supra) against the

sanctioned post whenever available as per his seniority. The learned counsel argued that the appointment of respondent No. 1 as part-time

Chowkidar was irregular, there fore, keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 44 of the judgment in Umadevi''s case

(supra), he could not have been considered for regularization. However, it has not been disputed that all those casual workers who had been

appointed before 1993 had been conferred with Temporary Status and later on were regularized on completion of 10 years of service as Group

''D'' employees according to the Instructions dated 11.12.2006. However, respondent No. 1 cannot be granted the said benefit because he was

appointed in the year 1995, but it is a matter of fact that when the Instructions dated 11.12.2006 came into existence, respondent No. 1 had

completed more than 10 years of service and according to those Instructions the petitioners are required to consider his case for regularization

against the vacant available posts. It has been found by the Tribunal that respondent No. 1 though was appointed as Part-time Chowkidar, but he

is entitled to full wages being full-time casual worker. Therefore, in our opinion, such type of worker is to be considered for regularization on

completion of 10 years of service. In the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the appointment of respondent No. 1 was irregular. It has

not been disputed before us that such appointments are being made by the petitioners in their Post Offices at various places. Respondent No. 1

has been working in the petitioner Department since 1995 against the sanctioned post. It is not the case of the petitioners that no post of

Chowkidar is available with the petitioner Department. It is also not the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 was not qualified for

appointment on the said post. Once respondent No. 1 has completed more than 10 years of service as on 11.5.2005, he is certainly entitled to be

considered for regularization in view of the Instructions dated 11.12.2006 issued by the petitioners in compliance with the directions given by the

Supreme Court in Umadevi''s case (supra). Respondent No. 1, who is a poor person and working as Chowkidar for the last more than 17 years,

cannot be denied the benefit of regularization on the ground that his appointment was irregular, particularly when there is no such material on the

record. At no point of time the petitioners had ever written to respondent No. 1 that his appointment was irregular. Only to defeat his claim for

regularization, such plea has been taken by the petitioners so that respondent No. 1 may not get the benefit of full-time Chowkidar despite the fact

that he has been continuously working as night Chowkidar with the petitioner Department. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the

impugned order passed by the Tribunal while granting the aforesaid two relief to respondent No. 1.

No merits. Dismissed.