STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. BAIDYANATH SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the writ petitioners is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge on 21.03.01 in C. O. No.12759 (W) of 1991.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioners is that they were engaged as casual employees and selected for the post of Durwan/Messenger under the appellant and served several departments of the appellants from the year 1983 to 1987. The Director (E), Ministry of Personnel and Training and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India, issued office memorandum to the effect that services of those casual workers may be regularised in Group-D post, in various Ministries/Departments, etc., who were recruited through the Employment Exchange as well as those who worked for a number of years. The petitioners fulfilled the conditions of the said order and they were entitled to be regularised in their respective posts. But, the respective department officers gave verbal orders to the petitioners for not resuming their duties. Though they were treated as casual workers by the authorities, they were given incentive, bonus like regular and permanent employees. They were suddenly disengaged from their respective job by the different department officers under DGM (F & A), Central Marketing Organization, SAIL and the said officer issued order on 16.12.86 to all Departmental Chief-in-Officers that casual basis or daily rated basis persons would have no engagement but they may be engaged from 1st January, 1997 only with prior permission of D (C). The management was recruiting persons from outside on daily rated basis though the writ petitioners were declared the surplus. As there was an order dated 16.12.86 for disengagement of the petitioners, so the petitioners moved the Court in writ jurisdiction challenging the said order and for restraining the appellant from filling up the post of Durwan/Messenger in the SAIL by any other person or persons other than the writ petitioners and the writ petitioners succeeded.

(3.) Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction upon the authority concerned to formulated a scheme according to the then prevailing statutory rules for the purpose of absorbing the petitioners and in the light of the judgment and order passed by this Court but not on the basis of present rule, if any, within a period of six months from the communication of the order. The petitioners were found to be entitled to payment for the number of days they had worked at the similar rate to the regular employees who have worked for the whole month till the date of their purported engagement. There was direction for payment of arrear.