UNION OF INDIA Vs. S RITA MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petitioners/Respondents have preferred the present Writ Petition as against the order dated 16.07.2008 in O.A.No.406 of 2006 passed by the 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. W.P.No.16889 of 2009: THE Writ Petitioners/Respondents have projected the present Writ Petition as against the order dated 16.07.2008 in O.A.No.824 of 2007 passed by the 20th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. THE 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal (20th Respondent in W.P.No.16889 of 2009), while passing the orders in O.A.No.406 of 2006 and O.A.No.824 of 2007, has, among other things, observed that 'O.A.No.764/2005, O.A.No.784/2005, O.A.No.785/2005, O.A.No.811/2005 and O.A.No.482/2006 filed by the respective applicants seeking regularisation were dismissed and further opined that since the applicants in O.A.No.482/2006 filed W.P.No.18969 of 2006 before this Court and if the applicants in the Writ Petition were to succeed, then, the present applicants in O.A.No.406 of 2006 and O.A.No.824 of 2007 also would be entitled for the consequential benefits and disposed of the said two Original Applications with an opinion that whatever order passed in W.P.No.18969 of 2006 shall follow in these two OAs and that the interim relief granted in the aforesaid Writ Petition is also applicable to the applicants also.' W.P.No.11492 of 2006: THE Writ Petitioners/Applicants have filed the present Writ Petition as against the order dated 24.02.2006 in O.A.No.48 of 2006 passed by the 9th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. THE 9th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, while passing orders in O.A.No.48 of 2006, has, inter alia, observed that 'In 2005 (2) ALSLJ - 396 Suriya Begum Vs. Union of India and others, the Guwahati Bench held that the termination of casual labourers with stigmatic order violate principles of natural justice. THE said case related to termination of service of a part time Safaiwala and according to the Tribunal, the stigmatic termination order will come in the way of applicant in seeking any further appointment. THE said order is liable to be set aside and the representation for regularisation of service was directed to be disposed of. In Raju alias Manoj P./Selat Vs.Union of India and others, a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench held that the applicant shall be given temporary status as per the scheme and regularisation as per his turn. THE case of the applicant is that he had satisfied the conditions for regularisation of the scheme for the year 1993. According to the Tribunal, the applicant fulfilled two conditions laid down in para 4.1 of the said scheme and hence directed the respondents to confer the temporary status. THEse judgments in our view in no way support the case of the applicants' and resultantly, held that 'no case has been made out to grant the reliefs to the applicants and accordingly, dismissed the Original Application.' W.P.No.18969 of 2006: THE Writ Petitioners/Applicants have filed the present Writ Petition in calling for the records from the file of the 3rd Respondent in Proceedings No.F.No.A-12034/1/2005 AD III B dated 2.5.2005 and that of the 7th Respondent in M.A.No.173 of 2006 in O.A.No.428 of 2006 dated 05.06.2006 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, irregular, Unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. Further, the Petitioners have sought for issuance of a direction to the 4th Respondent in granting temporary status to them. THE 7th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal has passed orders in M.A.No.173 of 2006 in O.A.No.428 of 2006 on 05.06.2006 allowing the Application filed by the nine persons (Writ Petitioners) for joining together to pursue the reliefs they have prayed for in O.A.No.428 of 2006. But dismissed the O.A.No.428 of 2006 at the stage of admission relying on the ratio settled on the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Dr.Rai Shivendra Bahadur vs. THE Governing Body of the Nalanda College ((1962) Supp. 2. SCR 144) wherein it is held that 'the issue of writ of mandamus was of dependent on the aggrieved party pointing out the legal duty of an authority to grant the relief and his legal right under the Statute or rule etc.' Factual Matrix in W.P.No.16733 of 2009:-

(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 1st Respondent/Applicant was appointed as a casual labourer, by means of an order dated 03.12.1984, issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Division, Nagapattinam and posted to Customs Preventive Party, Thanjavur on monthly wages and that she worked continuously in Petitioners' Department from 03.12.1984 onwards, without any break.

(3.) IT is the case of the Petitioners that when 10.09.1993 scheme came into force, the 1st Respondent/Applicant was working on part time basis and subsequent to Board's clarification dated 20.01.1994, part time casual labourers were not eligible for the conferment of temporary status. The Board's letter dated 09.03.1995 paves way for granting temporary status to casual labourers who were recruited prior to 07.06.1988 and continued till 08.04.1991 but could not be regularised by them. These instructions could not be applied to the case of 1st Respondent/Applicant because she was engaged on part time basis during the relevant period. There was no scope or provision in any of the instructions for the part time casual labourer to become eligible either for regularisation or for conferment of temporary status and in the meanwhile, the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued instructions dated 07.01.98 and it was instructed that in the case of Passport Officer, Trivandram V. Venugopal, the Honourable Supreme Court had upheld the decision not to grant temporary status for casual labourers on the ground that they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The 1st Respondent/ Applicant was not granted the temporary status in view of the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court also.