SITARAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, Sita Ram and 7 others seek the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: According to the petitioners, they were working as Seasonal Labourers on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the establishment of Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as Opium Factory) and have worked for varied period, the earliest starting from the year 1988 (in respect of some of the petitioners) and ending the year 2000 with broken periods. The General Manager, Opium Factory -respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 12th December, 2001 regarding appointment of Seasonal Labourers who had worked earlier in the establishment. Upon some objections being filed by the petitioners before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur, a direction was issued that option be given to the petitioners to opt for Class IV job in case the regularization was not possible. The General Manager -respondent No. 3 issued notice to the petitioners, in response thereto 15 persons including all the petitioners gave their consent to join on Class IV post. According to the petitioners, a new General Manager, namely, Sri S. K. Sinha was appointed and he in a mala fide manner refused to give joining to 9 persons including 8 persons, who are the present petitioners. Instead he called for the names of persons for filling up the vacancies through the Employment Exchange, and by means of an order dated 24th December, 2001, 25 persons were appointed on Class IV post on which they had joined. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved preferred Original Application No. 105 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad which, vide interim order dated 26th April, 2002, directed that no induction of Seasonal Labourers shall be done without considering the claim of the petitioners. It is alleged that the respondents did not take any action in the light of the order passed on 26th April, 2002 by the Tribunal. The original application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 21st December, 2003. Thereafter the respondents have inducted 27 persons vide order dated 12th January, 2004 and 13th January, 2004. The action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners on Class IV post as also the orders dated 24th December, 2001 and 12/13th December, 2004 are under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that the same have been passed in arbitrary and discriminatory manner violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the respondents have failed to take any action in the light of the order dated 26th April, 2002 of the Tribunal to consider the claim of the petitioners.

(3.) SRI K. C. Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners were engaged as casual hands (seasonal) for performing the ministerial duties from time to time with intermittent gap. Their engagement were based on requirement of work meaning thereby when import season comes, such seasonal hands were engaged including the petitioners who have performed the job of clerical nature. According to him, it is incorrect to state that any offer of absorption was given to the petitioners, therefore, the question of their regularization on the post does not arise. The vacancies of seasonal workman were filled up in accordance with the directions contained in the letters dated 2nd February, 2001 and 24th December, 2002 issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur. Considering the persons whose names have been invited from the Employment Exchange, Ghazipur, the petitioners and other departmental candidates were interviewed and only then the candidates who have been successful have been given appointment. As the petitioners were not selected, they cannot claim as a matter of right for being appointed on Class IV post of seasonal workman. The original application filed by the petitioners has already been rejected by the Tribunal. According to him the petitioners are not entitled for any relief from this Court.