SHIV DULARE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns the order dated 31. 08. 2007 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the tribunal) in O. A. No. 52/2007, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid Original Application filed by the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The aforesaid Original Application had been filed by the petitioner to seek the issuance of a direction to the respondents to include his name in the seniority list of daily paid labourers for granting temporary status and regularization in accordance with the rules and instructions.

(2.) IT appears that the respondent issued a public notice sometime in the year 1993, whereby it was notified that persons who had worked with Indian Institute for Agricultural Research as daily paid labourers and who could prove that they have worked as daily labourers, could get themselves registered with the institution on or before 31. 10. 2003 with the certificate of experience for the purpose of preparation of a consolidated seniority list of daily paid labourers for engaging such labourers in future. According to the petitioner, he made the requisite application for registration of his name in the seniority list of daily paid labourers. However, the petitioner states that his name was not so included in the seniority list. He claims that he kept representing to the respondents from time to time before he approached the Tribunal in the year 2007, i. e. after a lapse of 14 years, to seek the aforesaid relief.

(3.) THE Tribunal rejected the original application by observing that the respondents had approached the Tribunal after a lapse of 14 years without even seeking condonation of delay or explaining the delay in approaching the Tribunal. Moreover, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. The Tribunal held that the mere repeated representations made by the petitioner would not extend the bar of limitation. It relied on Umadevi (supra) wherein it held that a casual labour would have no legal right to seek engagement and can be engaged or disengaged based upon the availability or non-availability of work. Since the appointment of casual labour is not against any post there is no relevance of seniority in their case which can be upheld in law in the absence of any rule which stands the test of Umadevi's case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Original application both on the ground of limitation and on the ground that the petitioner had no legal right to seek the inclusion of his name in the said seniority list of casual labourers.