Union of India vs Sri N. Manjanna

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore City in O.A. No. 139/2010, dated 11.10 2011, is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that the respondent herein was appointed as Mazdoor on 23.5.1983. He was conferred with casual temporary status on 1.1.1993. Subsequently, he was treated on par with Group-D employees w.e.f. 2.2.1996 and has been placed at Sl. No. 20 in the seniority list. The persons at Sl. Nos. 1 to 19 in the said seniority list, were conferred with temporary status and treated on par with Group-D employees earlier than the respondent herein and therefore the respondent has grievance to the effect that he should be treated as senior to persons at Sl. Nos. 1 to 19 in the seniority list inasmuch as he was appointed as mazdoor earlier than others. With that grievance, the respondent approached Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 139/2010, which came to be allowed by the impugned order.

The Tribunal while deciding the matter has taken into consideration the date on which the respondent was appointed as Mazdoor; on comparing with the dates of appointment of various employees who are placed above respondent in the seniority list, the Tribunal having found that the respondent was appointed as Mazdoor much earlier to the persons who are placed above him, concluded that the respondent should be treated as senior and consequences should follow.

Sri Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drawing attention of the Court to the relevant Rules relating to General Terms and Conditions for employment of casual labour, contends that the Tribunal has erred in treating the date of appointment of respondent herein as Mazdoor while coming to the conclusion that the said date should be taken as the basis for preparing seniority. He submits that if and only the Mazdoor has rendered continuous service of at least one year and engaged in work for a period of 240 days in a particular year, he would be given casual temporary status and not otherwise. According to him, since the respondent did not engage himself in work for a period of 240 days in a year prior to 1992 he was not conferred with casual temporary status prior to 1.1.1993.

He further draws attention of the Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days in the year 1992-93 that is from 1st day of January 1992 to last day of December 1992, and therefore he was not conferred with casual temporary status on 1.1.1993 and thereafter consequences have followed.

Per contra, Sri Sheik Mourthuja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the Tribunal by contending that the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent should be accorded due seniority based on the date on which he was appointed as Mazdoor.

The undisputed facts are as under:--

The respondent was appointed as Mazdoor on 23.5.1983. He was conferred with casual temporary status on 1.1.1993. He was treated on par with temporary Group-D employees on 2.2.1996. During the pendency of this writ petition, i.e., on 27.7.2013, the respondent is conferred with permanent status of Group-D employee.

Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the Scheme relating to according temporary casual status, temporary Group-D status and permanent Group-D status which reads thus:--

Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary status and Regularization) Scheme- In compliance with the direction of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, a scheme was drawn up by this Department in consultation with the Ministries of Law, Finance and Personnel and the President has been pleased to approve the said scheme. The scheme is as follows:-

''Temporary Status'' would be conferred on the casual labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989 and who continue to be currently employed and have rendered continuous service of at least one year; during the year they must have been engaged for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week)

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

Conferment of Temporary Status does not automatically imply that the casual labourers would be appointed as a regular Group ''D'' employees within any fixed time frame. Appointment to Group ''D'' vacancies will continue to be done as per the extant Recruitment Rules, which stipulate preference to eligible ED employees.

After rendering three years'' continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated at par with temporary Group ''D'' employees for the purpose of contribution to General Provident Fund. They would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group ''D'' employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of this Department

From the aforementioned, it is clear that temporary status should be conferred on the casual labourers (Mazdoors). in employment as on 29.11.1989 and who have rendered continuous service of at least one year, during the year they must have been engaged in the work for 240 days. It is also clear from the said Rule that conferment of temporary status does not automatically be conferred on casual labourers within a fixed time frame. On the other hand, the appointment of Group-D vacancies will continue to be done as per the Recruitment Rules which stipulate preference to eligible ED employees. After rendering three years of continuous service after conferment of temporary status they would be treated on par with temporary Group-D employees for the purpose of contribution of General Provident Fund, etc.

Thus, it is clear that Mazdoors/casual labourers would be conferred with temporary status only if they worked for 240 days in a year as on 29.11.1989. These Rules are framed in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

The records maintained by the Department reveal that in the year 1989, the respondent has not worked for a single day; in the year 1990 he has worked for 17 days; in the year 1991, he worked for 17 days; however in the year 1992, he worked for 275 days and in the year 1993, he worked for 285 days. Since the respondent has worked for 275 days in the year 1992, he was conferred temporary status immediately thereafter i.e., on 1.1.1993. After completion of three years'' satisfactory service as temporary employee, he was treated on par with temporary Group-D employee on 2.2.1996. Based on the conferment of the temporary status on the employees, the seniority list is prepared. Since the respondent has been conferred with temporary status on 1.1.1993 his seniority is fixed based on the said date. Though certain of the persons who are appointed later than the respondent as Mazdoors, they are conferred with temporary status much earlier to the respondent because they must have worked for 240 days after 1989 and prior to 1992. Since the seniority list is prepared keeping in mind the date of conferment of temporary status on respondent, i.e., 1.1.1993, the Department is justified in showing the name of the respondent at Sl. No. 20, particularly when the persons at Sl. Nos. 1 to 19 are conferred with temporary status prior to 1.1.1993. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to sustain the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the wrong impression that the date of appointment as Mazdoor should be the criteria for preparing the seniority list. The Tribunal has not looked into the concerned Rules before coming to the conclusion and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is made:--

The impugned order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 139/2010, stands quashed.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.