DINESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE & COMPANY AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant filed OA -47/2008, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.1.2008 and the respondents were directed to treat the OA as representation on behalf of the applicant and consider his case for reengagement on casual basis and pass speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Subsequently, the applicant filed MA -348/2008 in the said OA seeking clarification of the order dated 17.1.2008, which was also disposed of by this Tribunal on 22.2.2008 by passing the following orders: - I do not find any clarification necessary as prayed by Smt. Rani Chhabra. However, the fact that the direction has been issued to consider the claim of the applicant, treating the OA as representation for which engagement on casual basis, even if vacancies are notified for Group D Class -IV. If the applicants apply it will be open for the respondents to consider their claim in accordance with law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. 2006 (4) SCC (1). Accordingly, this MA stands disposed of.

(2.) Pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal, as quoted above, the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure A) rejecting the claim of the applicant for reengagement. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the said order, which thus reads: - Accordingly their OA has been treated as a representation for re -engagement as casual labourer and is being considered in light of extant Rules/ regulations as given below: The C.B.E.C., vide its orders issued under F.No. A -12034/53/2002 -Ad.III (B) dated 26.11.2002 and F.No. C -18013/75/2003. Ad.III B dt. 10.03.2004 issued directions in this regard. Copies of the same are attached as Annx. A & B respectively. Para2 of letter F.No.A -12034/53/2002 -Ad.III (B) dated 26.11.2002 is reproduced as below: It is, therefore, requested that in future Casual Workers should not be recruited in any circumstances. It may also be noted that cases of negligence would be viewed seriously being a gross violation of the standing instructions of the DOP&T. And para 3 of the instruction issued under F.No.C -18013/75/2003. Ad.III.B dt. 10.03.2004 stipulates that It is reiterated that engagement of persons on daily wages stands banned and the Heads of Departments cannot exercise their delegated powers in this regard. Work for which no regular posts have been created/sanctioned may be outsourced through service providers/contractors after following the procedure prescribed in the GFRs. The payments of such outsourcing through the service provider may be done from the provisions under Contingent Office Expenditure and not from Wages. Being the sub -ordinate office, this office has to follow all the instructions issued by the CBEC, DOP&T and other Governing bodies of the Govt. of India. In view of the instructions above at present, no casual labour has been hired/working in this office. Further, the claim of the applicants that their juniors have been engaged on casual basis is clearly wrong and is misleading the Honble CAT. This office is only outsourcing certain services as and when required through a contractor. The contractor in turn hires people to provide services. It is reiterated that this office has neither engaged nor intends to engage casual labourers in view of the ban orders mentioned above. In so far as CATs clarification dated 22.02.2008 in respect of M.A.No.348/2008 is concerned the matter has been examined and comments are as follows: - The judgment dated 10.04.2006 of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. is for the persons appointed against duly sanctioned vacant posts in an irregular manner. Casual labourers are appointed for casual nature of work and not against any of the vacant sanctioned post, therefore, this judgment is not applicable to those who were engaged for casual work only. As per this office records Sh. Yashpal and Sh. Dinesh Kumar had worked as casual labourer from 12.8.1996 & 03/1997 respectively and thereafter on 20.5.2005 their services were discontinued in light of the Boards/DOP&T s orders above. Also, they were engaged for the work of intermittent nature on casual basis from time to time, during this period from 96 -97. It is clear from the above that both of the above candidates had worked for less than 10 years. Secondly, they were employed for the work of intermittent nature and not against a vacant sanctioned post. Hence their cases are also not covered by the said judgment dated 10.04.2006 of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. Therefore, their case cannot be considered under this judgment also. In view of the reasons mentioned above, it is not possible for this office to engage Sh. Yash Pal S/o Jejbir Singh and Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad on casual basis. However, they were free to apply against the 10 vacancies advertised by this Deptt. for direct recruitment in the Employment News/ Rozgar Samachar for the posts of Sepoy. In case they have applied for these posts their applications will be considered as per Rules laid down in this regard, along with the other applications received in this regard, on merits. The representation of Shri Yashpal and Sh. Dinesh for re -engagement on casual basis is accordingly rejected. As such, CATs order dated 17.01.208 and dated 22.02.2008 are complied with. This issues with the approval of Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut -I.

(3.) Aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: - 8.1 To summon the records of Commissionerate of Meerut and NOIDA pertaining to the year 1996 onwards till 2006 with regard to engagement vis - -vis termination/conferment of temporary status and regularization so as to unearth the truth. 8.2 To direct the respondents to re -engaged the applicant with all consequential benefits and continuity of service and regularity on par with others from the year 1996 onward. 8.3 To pass any other order or orders, direction or directions as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; 8.4 To allow this OA with heavy cost, because the applicant has been dragged into avoidable litigation.