A S PILLAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are employed as Civilian Bandsmen in station Bands Selection in the first respondent establishment. Some of the petitioners are employed as such from 1982 onwards and some of them from 1992 onwards as casual employees on a consolidated pay and the terms and conditions of the services of the petitioners in the first respondent establishment are governed by the existing administrative instructions. The petitioners and others have given representations to the respondents on 22. 5. 2001 and 21. 6. 2001 praying to fix the pay scale of Civilian bandsmen on par with the pay scales of Bandsmen in the indian Air Force and the respondents, though, at the first instance have replied to the petitioners by their letter dated 20. 12. 2000 that their claim is under consideration, but, subsequently, by their letter dated 20. 9. 2001 have rejected the request of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners along with others have filed Original application No. 1162 of 2001 before the Central administrative Tribunal praying to direct the respondents to absorb them in any one of the Group 'd' posts in the first respondent establishment and regulate the services of the applicants with effect from the date of their initial appointment as Casual Labourers in the first respondent establishment and sanction all service benefits including arrears of salary. The petitioners have also submitted that in the year 1992, the applicants were called upon, following their applications, by the Commandant, CISF, RTC, Arakkonam for interview and test for appointment as Bandsmen in CISF, rtc, Arakkonam, but they were not allowed to report to test for selection by the first respondent stating that since they were appointed at Air Force Station, Tambaram, they would be made permanent and their pay scales would be fixed on par with the pay scales of Bandsmen in the Indian Air force.

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply statement stating that the Air Force Station, Tambaram has engaged Civilian Bandsmen Team consisting of 10 bandsmen as a Non-Public Fund Venture and they all are paid from local Non Public Fund and are not governed under the Central government Rule; that they are working as part-time and their terms and conditions are governed by DACL. 29/99; that the services rendered by them as Bandsmen cannot be accounted or regulated for any Government appointments as they are not Government servants and not paid from Defence service Estimate (Public Fund) and there are no provisions and Rules to absorb any employee, whether paid from public fund or non-public fund to any existing regular vacancies. The respondents would deny the allegation of the petitioners that they were not allowed to participate in the interview and would further submit that the existing regular vacancies are laid down in SRO 365, dated 15. 12. 1989, which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and these regular vacancies can be filled either by transfer or by direct recruitment and not by absorption; that the non-Government employees are not eligible and entitled for any relaxation for Government appointment and has to follow the procedure which is laid down for other citizens for direct recruitment and the claim of Bandsmen for absorption for released Group 'd' post is illegal.

(3.) THE respondents would further submit that the government of India has released some vacancies for Group 'c' and 'd' posts after relaxing ban on recruitment which was in existence since 1984 and these vacancies are to be filled up by direct recruitment and a publication to this effect was effected in the Employment News, dated 24/30. 12. 2001 and no Bandsman has ever been given any assurance for absorption in Government appointments and not prevented to seek employment elsewhere; that the petitioners are not engaged against any existing vacancies and not paid from Public Fund Account and their duties are for limited hours and occasional; that petitioners 1 to 4 were engaged for a consolidated salary, which was revised from time to time and the last revision was done in 1997 and rest of the petitioners were engaged on daily wages and at present they are paid at Rs. 40/= per day and Rs. 200/= per month as incentive in addition to other financial packages; that the petitioners are not eligible and entitled for absorption in group 'd' posts and there is no Rule for their absorption in group 'd' posts, which are to be filled under Recruitment rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and the petitioners, instead of following the procedure for applying for direct recruitment, want a back door entry for these posts. On such averments, the respondents prayed to dismiss the claim of the petitioners.