UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 22nd February, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in OA No.1000/2006 wherein respondent is given the benefit of O.M dated 7th May, 1997 and it is held that respondent is entitled to recategorization as "Pump Operator" since the post of 'Assistant Operator' as under:-

(2.) The respondent was appointed as "Assistant Operator" (E&M) as casual worker of Muster Roll on 01.06.1984. The name of petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange and was selected after following the selection procedure of interview/test under the Recruitment Rules. Since then respondent is continuing without any break with the petitioner. Respondent was granted temporary status on 01.09.1993. On 03.03.1997, the respondent had passed the trade test for "Assistant Operator". On 31.01.1988, an arbitration award was passed in respect of a dispute between the management and employees of CPWD regarding re-classification/re-categorisation of various classified categories of employees. In implementing the award, various categories of employees in work charge establishment were merged with their corresponding main categories vide O.M. Dated 07.05.1997 by the Director General of CPWD. Accordingly, the post of "Assistant Operator" in work charge establishment was merged with the post of "Operator" (E&M) and the persons appointment as "Assistant Operators" (E&M) in work charge establishment at the time of merger were automatically appointed as "Operators" (E&M) and were given the scale of "Operator" (E&M). The merger was to be effected in the establishment of work charge establishment and casual workers would find place in work charge establishment only when he has been regularized. By then, the respondent was not regularized, therefore, he remained "Assistant Operator" (E&M) on a casual basis.

(3.) On the implementation of the arbitration award of 31.01.1988 vide O.M. dated 7.5.1997, many persons who were junior to the respondent and had been regularized before 1997 were automatically appointed as 'Operator (E&M)' and were given the pay-scale of 'Operator (E&M)'. On coming to know of the alleged discrimination, the respondent gave a representation dated 23.9.1997as to why he had not been regularized whereas his juniors had already been regularized and alleged that the action of the petitioner was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondent requested the petitioner for regularization from the date his juniors were regularized as Assistant Operator (E&M) and also to appoint him as an 'Operator (E&M)' from the date his juniors were appointed. Respondent was given an assurance that the same would be done but nothing was done. The respondent has given the names of his junior who were appointed as Casual Workers and had been regularized before 07.05.1997 as an "Assistant Operator" and were later appointed as an "Operator" on merger on 07.05.1997 in para 4.4. at page 43 of the paperbook.