RITU KUSHWAHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.3949/2011, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid application. The said Original Application had been preferred to seek regularization of the services of the petitioners with effect from the date they completed ten years of service along with consequential benefits.

(2.) Before the CAT, the case of the petitioners was that they are all working in the Ministry of Defence as daily wagers since 2000 as Safaiwalas/ Labourers. Their names were sponsored by Employment Exchange and they were interviewed by the Selection Committee. Since their services were not regularized and they continued to be deprived of the regular pay scale and other benefits attendant to regular service, and they claim that they were rendering the same service as other regularly recruited Safaiwalas/ Labourers, they made representations to the respondents seeking regularization. The petitioners claimed that on their representations, the issue was examined and the then Additional Solicitor General had given a written opinion on 28.03.2011 that the services of the petitioners be regularized. While doing so, the case of one Smt. Rajbala was cited to justify the petitioners' claim for regularization. Smt. Rajbala had been appointed on compassionate basis initially as a daily wager. Since she was not regularized, she had preferred O.A. No.1550/2008 before the CAT, which was allowed. The said order of the CAT was confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C.) No.8518/2009. The respondents had accepted that decision and implemented the same in respect of Smt. Rajbala.

(3.) The further case of the petitioners was that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others, 2006 4 SCC 1, since the petitioners have rendered over ten years of service as daily wagers, they were entitled to be considered for regularization under a scheme, to be framed by the respondents.