9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ph 3 of the petition that the petitioner served continuously from the date of his oral appointment as sweeper in the said department and completed more than 240 days of service. The petitioner was orally terminated on 30/08/2001. 04. The petitioner challenged his oral termination by filing OA No. 663 of 2001. The petitioner was applicant No.4 in the said O.A. along with Sanjay Arjun Patil, Mrs.Lata Rajendra Shah and Mr.Bhagwan Shalik Patil. The said O.A. was filed on 13/09/2001. 05. The petitioner has set out the following prayers in the said original application : a) The Hon'ble Tribunal pleased to quashed and set aside the termination order dated 30/02/2001 so far Applicant Nos. 1,2 and 3 are concerned and be pleased to allow the Applicant No.4 to render his services on the post which he was holding until a regularly qualified candidate is made available from regular recruiting agency. b) The Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to regularize the services of the Applicants on the post of the sweeper. c) Any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. d) Cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al labourer with temporary status can also quit service by giving a written notice of one month. The wages for the notice period will be payable only for the days on which such casual workers is engaged on work. 09. The petitioner has, therefore, vehemently submitted that he is entitled for regularization in light of the scheme referred above, in as much as, his termination ought to have been set aside by the Tribunal. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal has resulted in miscarriage of justice and an unsustainable conclusion has been drawn by the learned C.A.T. 10. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the C.A.T., dated 12/04/2006 delivered in O.A.No.160 of 2005 in the case of Uday Madhukar Kadam Vs. Union of India and Shashikant Suhash Vilankar Vs. Union of India in O.A.No. 704 of 2002 dated 09/07/2004. He has also placed reliance upon reported judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation reported at 1990(1) SCC 361 and The workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. The Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd., reported in 2006(1) Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court that the delay be condoned. A lame and feeble excuse has been put forth by the petitioner stating that he was trying to bring the other three applicants together and was collecting money for filing this writ petition. He, therefore, submits that on ground of delay alone, the petition needs to be dismissed. 15. The learned advocate for the respondents has further submitted that the scheme was introduced to be made effective from 01/09/1993. The phraseology used in Clause 4(i) clearly indicates that the claimant must have rendered continuous service at least for one year on the date of application of the said scheme. He has further explained that in the said one year of continuous employment, the said applicant ought to have completed 240 days in continuous service as on 01/09/1993. Petitioner has not claimed any such benefit after the introduction of the scheme. After being terminated, he has challenged his termination and in doing so, has further prayed for benefits flowing from the said scheme. 16. It is further submitted by the respondents that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) has iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enrolled through the Employment Exchange was alone entitled for the benefits under the said scheme. Clause (6) of the memorandum indicates that the employee should have worked for 240 days in continuous employment excluding weekly off, leave or absence. He has, therefore, stated that the petition which otherwise needs to be dismissed on account of delay and laches, is devoid of merit. 19. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective sides, we have gone through the petition paper book and annexure 'X' tendered by the petitioner across the bar. 20. So far as delay in filing this petition is concerned, we are of the considered view that the reason put forth by the petitioner that he was trying to bring the applicants together and that he was collecting money for filing of this petition, is a lame excuse. The petitioner has kept silent for seven years. The petition is filed after the said period of seven years, which we find to be an inordinate delay. We are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the petition was filed within reasonable time. As such, on this count alone the petition does not deserve to be entertained. 21. Notwithstanding the above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain -- not at arms length -- since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to avoid a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come to a conclusion in Paragraph 11 as follows : "11. It is observed that the applicant was engaged prior to the due date as per 1993 Scheme i.e. 01.9.1993. There is no dispute that the applicant is still working as Sweeper, the work are permanent in nature and the applicant has completed 240 days. In view of the law laid down in Piara Singh's case and Mohanpal's case, applicant is entitled for temporary status and regularization of service." Needless to state, in the said case the applicant Shashikant Vilankar was working with the respondents as a sweeper and had completed 240 days service. In that backdrop, the learned C.A.T. had allowed the Original Application and had accorded temporary status to the applicant. In the case on hand, the petitioner had approached the C.A.T. after his termination. 26. In the case Uday Madhukar Kadam, the C.A.T. has observed that he was working since 01/08/1993 and was on the establishment on 10/09/1993. He had completed 240 days in continuous employment. The condition of being sponsored by the Employment Exchange did not matter as he could get the benefit of the circular dated 24/05/1985. The petitioner in the instant case as per the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
