UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHITRA BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Central Government Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondent in this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As noted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, facts are not in dispute. V.Y. Babu was employed initially as a casual labourer at Kerala Circle Stamp Depot and later on conferred with temporary status. After three years of service as a temporary status employee he was treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees of Department of Posts, whereby, to Group 'D' employees under regular basis. He, unfortunately died on 13.06.2011, leaving behind the respondent and her two young children. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment. That was rejected on the ground that she is not entitled to such appointment as the said benefit is available only to family members of Government servants appointed on regular basis and not those working on daily wage, casual or apprentice or ad hoc or contract or re -employment basis. The Tribunal granted the applicant's prayer. Establishment filed an application for review. The Tribunal went into the merits of the review petition as well, which stood with an application seeking condonation of delay of 245 days. That was also dismissed.

(2.) ON the basis of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal noted and applied four judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. : [(1990) Supp SCC 113]. It was held that after rendering three years of continuous service with temporary status, the casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Grade 'D' employees of the Department of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group 'D' Employees on regular basis. In Union of India v. K.N. Sivadas [ : (1997) 7 SCC 30], it was held by the Apex Court that the various benefits which go with the conferment of temporary status were given to the casual labourers in view of the fact that their eventual absorption as regular employees was not to be within any fixed time and they were not automatically entitled to become regular employees. That decision was rendered dilating on the provisions of the scheme which upheld grant of temporary status on casual labourers. In Union of India v. Mohan Pal : [(2002) 4 SCC 473] the Honourable Supreme Court held that by conferment of "temporary" status, the casual labourers acquire certain rights. Their daily rates of wages will be on the pro rata basis of salary and allowances payable to the employees working under the Group 'D' posts. They are also eligible for casual and other kinds of leave. On completion of 3 years' continuous service after conferment of "temporary" status, they would be admitted to the general provident fund. They are entitled to get festival advance and flood advance and other welfare measures applicable to the Group 'D' employees. Director General of Posts v. K. Chandrasekhar Rao [ : (2013)3 SCC 310] was referred to by the Tribunal to note that grant of compassionate appointments, is one of the welfare measures. With these positions of law being well settled by now, we find no legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.