UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the Petitioner -Union of India and its functionaries as well as for the Respondents. Though there has been no appearance on behalf of the parties, we have thought it appropriate to address, the controversy and issue. The Respondents invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, tribunal) in OA No. 748/1997 claiming that the present Petitioners should confer temporary status on them as they were wrongly declined grant of temporary status on the ground that the Respondents had not completed 206 days of casual service on the date of issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 10th September, 1993.

(2.) IT was contended by the Respondents, herein before the tribunal that they were initially engaged for a period of three months with effect from 1st May, 1995 and their engagement was extended till 8th January, 1996. They worked upto 31st December, 1995 and the extension was only upto that date. Thereafter they filed O.A. No. 274/1996 wherein the tribunal directed the Respondents to communicate the decision of temporary status and regularization within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order dated 23rd December, 1996. It was further put forth that they had worked for 245 days till then and hence they should be given temporary status but the second Respondent therein issued an Office Memorandum dated 17th February, 1997 rejecting their claim on the ground that the scheme was applicable to casual labourers who were in employment and who had put in one year of service as on 10th September, 1993. Reliance was placed on the decision of the tribunal in Kiran Kishore v. Union of India in O.A. No. 1696/1995. Reliance was also placed on the decision in O.A. No. 1398/1996 whereby the tribunal had directed only temporary status but eventually regular absorption as Group D employees on available vacancies was to be conferred.

(3.) THEREAFTER the tribunal proceeded to direct conferment of temporary status on the applicants within four weeks. This Court while issuing notice had directed stay of operation of the impugned order.