UDAYAN MUKHERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The several persons joined together approached the Central Administrative Tribunal ventilating their grievance against the respondent authorities in perpetrating the discrimination with the similarly circumstance persons perceived on the basis of the memo dtd. 17/9/2013.

(2.) Undisputedly, the petitioners were working as a casual mazdoor in Eastern Telecom Project Circle under the Department of Telecommunication for various works including laying of cable, digging of trenches, construction of lines, fitting of subscribers offices and any other allied work instructed by the higher official connected and/or relation thereto. All the petitioners including the widows of the deceased employee claimed that they rendered services continuously and in fact worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. Subsequently, a scheme was floated by the Government of India styled as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme for the Department of Telecommunication, 1989 which was brought into effect on and from 1/10/1989. The said scheme provides for regularization of the casual labourers and embargo in filling up the post of Group-D from outside until they are absorbed into an existing sanctioned post subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria.

(3.) Nearly 614 casual labourers under the said department were found to have worked as casual labourers and it is claimed that they fulfill all the eligibility criterions under the aforesaid scheme and therefore, are entitled to be absorbed in the sanctioned Group-D post. However, 387 casual labourers of the Eastern Telecom Project Circle out of 614 were granted temporary status with effect from 12/2/1999 leaving 227 casual labourers who were working in the said Eastern Telecom Project Circle and stands on a same footing that of the said 387 casual workers.