ARUN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2011 passed in OA No.3451/2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the petitioners said Original Application was dismissed. The petitioner had claimed regularization in a suitable group ,,D post on the allegation that persons junior to him had been regularized.

(2.) THE petitioner had based his case on a scheme issued by the Government of India known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993. The petitioner had also based his claim on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Ors. : 2006 (4) SCC 1.

(3.) APART from this, we find that the Tribunal has adequately addressed the issue with regard to the said 1993 Scheme. As pointed out in paragraph 6 of the impugned decision, the scheme has specifically indicated in paragraph 4(i) thereof that temporary status would be conferred on all causal labourers who were in employment on the date of issuance of the OM and who had rendered continuous service of at least one year which meant that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing a 5 -day week). The scheme was effective on 01.09.1993. It is an admitted position, apart from the question that the petitioner was a part -time casual worker, that the petitioner was not working on 01.09.1993 inasmuch as he was engaged as a Safaiwala only on 01.02.1995. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the scheme would not have any application to the petitioner.