V C Mani vs Union Of India

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C).1435/2021 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.4.2022 of the learned Single Judge in writ petition.

The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are that the appellant was engaged as a Casual Labour in the Rubber plantation of the Rubber Research Institute from 3.8.1983 onwards and was made a permanent worker on 1.11.1995. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the non extension of the benefit under Ext.P4 Scheme to him at a time when, according to him, his alleged juniors in service were granted the said benefit and regularized in the service under the respondent. When a representation preferred by the petitioner in 2010 did not elicit any response from the respondents, the petitioner moved this Court through a Writ Petition which resulted in Ext.P7 judgment which directed the Board to consider the petitioner's claim. The Board thereafter considered the claim and passed Ext.P8 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It was Ext.P8 order that was impugned in the Writ Petition that resulted in the judgment impugned in this Appeal.

The learned Single Judge who considered the matter took note of the specific averments in the counter affidavit of the respondents that Ext.P4 Scheme was applicable only to person engaged on daily wage basis in Central Government Offices as on 1.19.1993 and that the Scheme did not apply to the petitioner who was engaged in farm work/plantation work on daily wages for doing the manual work in Rubber plantation which work fell within the ambit of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951. The learned Judge also found that the petitioner had since retired from service on 31.3.2020 and was given an amount of Rs.4,95,150/- as gratuity on 10.7.2020. The Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner was therefore rejected taking note of the stand of the respondent.

Before us, it is the submission of Sri.Nidheesh, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the learned Single Judge erred in assuming that Ext.P4 Scheme did not have any application to the petitioner. While the said submission is made, we have not been shown any material that would suggest that Ext.P4 Scheme would in fact apply to the appellant herein. On the contrary, it is not in dispute that the appellant was covered by the Plantation Labour Act and had also subsequently retired from service after availing all the retirement benefits due to him. Under such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The Writ Appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.