V.C.MANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was engaged as Casual Labour in the Rubber Plantation of the Rubber Research Institute of the third respondent from 3/8/1983 onwards and was made a permanent worker on 1/11/1995. While the petitioner was continuing as permanent worker, third respondent conducted an open recruitment for the Group-D post of Peon/Watcher. The causal/permanent workers of the third respondent were also allowed to participate in the selection, along with open market candidates. In the selection thus conducted in the year 1999, the petitioner was ranked No.5. Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal to appoint him, in spite of his higher rank. Later, by Ext.P4 Scheme, the third respondent extended the benefit of conferment of temporary status to casual labourers. The petitioner alleges that, in spite of his eligibility, he was not given the benefit of Ext.P4, while his juniors were granted temporary status and later regularised. Voicing his grievances the petitioner had approached the third respondent and his representation having failed to evoke any response, the petitioner moved writ petition before this Court, resulting in Ext.P7 judgment directing the third respondent Board to consider the petitioner's claim. In compliance of the direction, the third respondent considered the claim and rejected the same under Ext.P8 order. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P8 and to direct the third respondent to grant all benefits due to the petitioner under Ext.P4 Scheme, with consequential appointments as was given to his juniors.

(2.) Heard Advs. C.S.Manilal for the petitioner and Abraham Joseph Markos for the third respondent.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner was originally engaged as casual labour and thereafter appointed as permanent worker in the plantations of the Rubber Research Institute of India of the third respondent. The contention of the third respondent that workers of plantations are governed by the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and the Standing Orders is not disputed. A perusal of Ext.P4 shows that the Scheme envisages grant of temporary status to casual labourers in employment on the date of issue of the Office Memorandum (10/9/1993) and who have rendered continuous service of at least one year (240 days). The Scheme is seen made applicable to causal labourers in employment of the Ministries/ Departments of Government of India and their attached/subordinate offices. Being so, I find substantial merit in the contention of the third respondent that the petitioner being a manual labour governed by the Plantation Labour Act and Standing Orders, is not entitled for the benefit of Ext.P4 Scheme, meant for conferment of temporary status to casual labourers in the employment of Ministries/Departments and attached/subordinate offices. The allegation that identically placed juniors was extended the benefit of Ext.P4 Scheme is controverted by pointing out that the said workmen had been engaged in the maintenance sec. of the Rubber Research Institute of India and not as manual labour in its plantations.