B.V.NANDAKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the applicant in O.A.No.180/00835/2014 of the Central Administrative Tribunal ("the CAT" for short) is before us challenging Ext.P7 order dated 23.2.2016, dismissing the application. According to the petitioner, the order of the CAT requires to be interfered with and set aside in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. According to him, he has been working as a Bearer at the Canteen attached to All India Radio, Calicut, continuously since 1990. It is his case that, he had been engaged for more than 240 days per annum. He is the sole bread winner of his family. He is aged 46 years and has spent the best part of his life working in the All India Radio Canteen with the expectation that his services would be regularised. According to him, as per the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India 1993, formulated in pursuance of the judgment dated 16.2.1990 of the Principal Bench of CAT in the case of Raj Kamal and others Vs. Union of India, it was stipulated that temporary status would be conferred on all casual employees who are in employment on the date of issue of O.M.No.51016/2/90 -Est (c) dated 10.9.1993. Since the petitioner had been working in the All India Radio Department Canteen from the year 1990, it is contended that he is entitled to be conferred with temporary status. He produced Annexures A7 to A15 letters written by the Superior Officers recommending his regularisation, pointing out that he had been working continuously from 1990 onwards. In view of the clear admission by the authorities in the communications referred to above, the petitioner contended that he was entitled to be regularised in service. However, by Annexure -A18 the proposal to regularise was turned down by the 4th respondent, holding that there was no evidence or proof available. The records of the All India Radio show that the petitioner had not been working in any capacity during the period from 1990 -1993. Therefore it has been found that he was not entitled to be granted temporary status as per the DOPT's guidelines. The petitioner had approached the CAT by filing O.A.No.835 of 2014 challenging Annexure A -18 order dated 17.9.2014 of the 4th respondent.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents. A thorough investigation pursuant to Ext.P2 was made to trace out any valid document to show that the petitioner had been engaged as a Casual Labourer as claimed, from 1990 onwards. It was also verified whether he was engaged on the crucial date, 10.9.1993. It has been stated in the reply statement at page 4 of Ext.P2 as follows: