Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd. Vs. Sri Narayana Thimmappa & ANR. [2008] INSC 1756 (17 October 2008)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6176 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.14975 of
2005) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ... Appellant Sri Narayana Thimmappa Madivel
... Respondent
O R D E R
1.
Leave
granted. Heard learned counsel.
2.
The
first respondent was hired on daily wage basis, for miscellaneous work on
1.8.1998 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Kumta (Karwar District). No
order of appointment was issued and he was paid from the contingency account.
The respondent's services were discontinued with effect from 1.4.2000. Feeling
aggrieved the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
contending that he ought to have been given temporary status. The Tribunal
directed the department to consider first Respondent's request. Accordingly,
the appellant, successor of telecom department considered the case of first 2
respondent and passed an order dated 16.8.2001 rejecting the request for
temporary status. The order stated that he was hired under the contingency
expenditure account; that only casual mazdoors were entitled to conferment of
temporary status; that recruitment of casual mazdoors was stopped with effect
from 30.3.1985; that as first respondent was not employed as casual mazdoor, he
was not entitled to conferment of temporary status. The first respondent
challenged the said order in OA No.1262/2001 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore and prayed for a direction to the appellant to grant him
temporary status. The Tribunal, by order dated 6.2.2002 allowed the said
application, quashed the order dated 16.8.2001 and directed the appellant to
grant him temporary status from the due date in terms of the scheme dated
7.11.1989. That order was affirmed by the High Court by order dated 13.1.2005.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
3.
The
scheme dated 7.11.1989 referred to by the Tribunal is the Casual Labourers
(Grant of Temporary Status and Regulation) Scheme, 1989 of the Telecom
department. That was a Scheme for conferring contemplated "temporary
status on casual labourers who are currently employed and have 3 rendered
continuous service of at least one year".
Interpreting a similar
Scheme this Court had held that such a Scheme could not be considered as a
continuous on going Scheme intended to give temporary status to all casual
workers as and when they completed continuous service for the period prescribed
in the said scheme; that such schemes were one-time Schemes under which persons
who were in employment on the date of commencement of the Scheme and who had
rendered the prescribed continuous service were entitled to temporary status
and the scheme did not postulate grant of temporary status to casual workers
who were subsequently employed, as and when they completed continuous service
for the prescribed period. (See : Union of India vs. Mohan Lal - 2002 (4) SCC
573). The said principle applies to the 1989 scheme of the telecom department
also. Therefore the Tribunal could not have relied on the 1989 scheme to direct
conferment of temporary status to respondent who was engaged on 1.8.1998.
4.
The
Respondent had also relied on a departmental circular dated 29.9.2000 in his
application before the Tribunal. In fact the respondent admitted that the said
circular contemplated giving temporary status to those who were engaged earlier
to 1.8.1998. The said circular, in no 4 way helps the respondent. The Circular
of Telecom Department dated 29.9.2000 stated that the department's letter dated
12.2.1999 granted temporary status to casual labourers eligible as on 1.8.1998,
and all casual labourers not eligible for temporary status on 1.8.1998 were to
be disengaged forthwith. The Circular dated 29.9.2000 does not say that those
engaged on 1.8.1998 shall be given temporary status. A person engaged on
1.8.1998 cannot be considered as having become eligible for temporary status on
1.8.1998 itself. It is apparent that to become eligible for grant of temporary
status, the candidate must have been in service as on 1.8.1998 and should have
worked as casual labourer continuously for the period prescribed in the letter
dated 12.2.1999, as on 1.8.1998. The respondent admittedly was not engaged as
casual labourers prior to 1.8.1998. As the respondent was engaged only on
1.8.1998 and was not in service for a continuous period of one year prior to
that date, he was not entitled to grant of temporary status even under the
letter dated 12.2.1999 read with circular dated 29.9.2000. This aspect has been
completely lost sight of by the Tribunal and the High Court.
5.
The
appellant also contended that the appointment of respondent was not as a casual
labourer. In view of what is 5 stated above, it is not necessary to examine as
to whether the first respondent was a casual labourer or not.
6.
We
accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the
High Court and dismiss the application filed by the respondent claiming
temporary status.
..........................................................J
[R. V. Raveendran]
.............................................................J
[J M Panchal]
New
Delhi;
October
17, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2