GANGESHWARPRASAD B SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three petitioners have filed this petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on 15.12.1999 in O.A. No.583 of 1997. The case of the petitioners as set out in the application before the Tribunal is that applicant No.1 joined the services of respondent No.4 somewhere in the month of March, 1983 and worked for about a month. It is his case that thereafter he was re-employed in the months of July and August, 1988. However, due to his ill-health, he could not render services. He was declared fit from 1.1.1991 onwards and thereafter, it is his case that, he continuously worked with the respondent. Applicant No.2 joined services for the first time on or about 1.12.1983 and he continued to work for a period of one year. From 1.12.1984 to 1.1.1985, he was under medical treatment and on being declared fit, he continued to work from 15.2.1985 to 31.5.1985. Again from 1.6.1985 to August 1988, this applicant was not keeping good health. He was taken on duty somewhere in the month of September, 1988 and he is working thereafter with the respondent Department. So far as applicant No.3 - original applicant No.5 before the Tribunal- is concerned, he was employed for the first time in the year 1987. It appears that thereafter he started working with effect from 1.5.1991 and, since then, he is working continuously and is presently posted with the respondent Department. It was contended before the Tribunal that, in view of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of DAILY R.C. LABOUR P&T DEPARTMENT v. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1987 SC 2342, the benefits ought to have been granted to the applicants. On the facts as stated above, the Tribunal was moved and, on 1.10.1997, the Tribunal passed an order as under:

(2.) The Tribunal in para 7 of its order dated 15.12.1999 has pointed out that at the request of the learned advocate appearing for the applicants, the matter was adjourned from time to time; the learned advocate appearing for the respondents insisted that the matter should be heard immediately or the interim relief granted earlier by the Tribunal without hearing should be vacated and the hearing of the O.A. should be postponed. On behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that the interim relief granted against the respondents was creating problems for the Department; that even though no work was available for the applicants, they had to retain them in service and were required to pay salary. It was pointed out that the High Court had directed to give priority to this matter. From the order of the Tribunal it appears that the applicants, after obtaining stay order, were not cooperating in the hearing of the matter. The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 8 as under:

(3.) Thus, there was a mandate issued by the Division Bench of this Court to dispose of the matter at the earliest and the Tribunal was acting in accordance with the order passed by this Court. The Tribunal by a detailed order considering the case of applicant No.4 on merits, accepted the contentions and granted applicant No.4 the temporary status. However, so far as others are concerned, the Tribunal did not find any reason to pass any order. There is a Scheme issued by the Government for granting temporary status as well as regularisation which is known as "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, which is placed on the compilation of the case at page 22. Clause 1 of the said Scheme reads as under: