A RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants filed the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 assailing the order of their termination dated 29-9-1988 with effect from 1-10-1988. The applicants claimed the relief for quashing the impugned order dated 29-9-1988, for being treated in continuous service with the respondents; for entitlement to be regularised in appointment having put in more than 240/ 206 days of work. in a calendar year, with occasional artificial breaks given by the respondents.

(2.) Applicants' case is that they were given employment as casual labour by the Air Headquarters, New Delhi through the Employment Exchange. The Specimen appointment letter of Hira Lal Applicant No. 2 dated 1 1-7-1987 (Annexure-11; is fried to show that the initial appointment was to last for 89 days which could be curtailed ; giving no right to the applicants to claim any lien on the posts. The engagement of the applicants however, continued with artificial breaks of some duration.

(3.) The applicants alleged that the respondents recently discontinued issue of memo of appointmcnts It is further alleged that in order to keep the period of engagement less than 240/206 days in a year, the applicants arc not appointed for a continuous period though most of the applicants have worked as a casual labour for 240 days in a year. Its stated by the applicants that even after terminating the services of the applicants on 30-9-S988, the respondents have been continuing to engage fresh casual labourers Seven fresh casual labourers were engaged on 6.12 1989 though the applicants were available for engagement or re-appointment if continuity was not desired to be broken by the respondents. Only applicant No. I, ShiiARaiware-engagedon5.10.1989whi!e other applicants were not taken back on the posts. The applicant No. 4 Raj Dev. No. 9 Indcr Singh and No. 11 Dilbar Singh Rawal were engaged with effect from 2.4.1990 while the other applicants were not given further appointment. The respondents are continuing to make fresh appointments through the Employmens. Exchange ignoring the claim of the applicants, hence representations were made to the respondents for redressal of their grievances. In spite of several reminders made to the respondents by the applicants, they have not been given any engagement ; hence this application.