O.P.TIWARI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated October 14, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in OA No.1456/2003 and order dated December 04, 2013 in Review Application No.359/2003 in O.A. No.1456/2003 whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.324/1997 as per his seniority subject to his suitability and availability of posts in Group ,,D and further dismissed the Review Application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner was engaged as a casual worker in respondent No.2 organization in the year 1986 when he worked for a period of 57 days. He was continued to be engaged as casual labour for subsequent years in the manner specified as under:-

(3.) ON August 25, 1994 the O.A. No.1580/1990 filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to engage him as and when work is available in preference to persons with lesser length of service as casual worker. The Government of India formulated a scheme dated September 10, 1993 to regularise and grant temporary status to casual workers on the conditions laid therein. A list was prepared wherein his name was not included but subsequently his name was shown as serial No.55 as a non-eligible worker. In the year 1995, 14 casual workers were regularised which gave a cause for the petitioner to file a fresh Original Application which was registered as O.A.No.324/1997 for non-inclusion in the list and regularising 14 casual workers who were junior to him except Smt.Ram Pyari. The Original Application was decided on April 21, 1998 wherein a direction was given to re-engage him and regularise him if the work is available and no person senior to him is waiting and further to grant temporary status and regularise him with an observation that non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner at serial No.55 in the list of persons not eligible for regularisation is clearly arbitrary. The directions of the Tribunal in order dated April 21, 1998 are reproduced hereunder:-