JAYANTA CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9/7/2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, calcutta Bench in O. A. No. 779 of 2003. The Tribunal has observed that the applicants had never worked for a continuous period of 240/206, days under the respondents preceding the date of issue of the O. M. dated 10/9/1993. So their claim for conferment of temporary status was not granted.

(2.) FACTS in short are that the three writ applicants have claimed that they were engaged as casual labourers sometime in 1984-1988 or thereafter under the respondents; but the respondents did not consider their claim of absorption as regular Group-D employees as per circular issued by the D. O. P. T in the letters dated 21. 03. 1979 and 26. 10. 1984. The writ applicants filed the cases before the Tribunal earlier which issued directions upon the respondents to consider their claim again and to pass a speaking order thereon. Then the respondents considered their case and rejected their claim. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such rejection they have filed the case before the Tribunal which passed the impugned order.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the record and on hearing submission of the learned Advocate for the writ applicants, we find that the three writ applicants have failed to show that they had worked minimum for 240 days in each year for two consecutive years to get absorption under the respondents. They had relied upon the certificates marked as annexure P-11 to show that they had worked under the respondents. Such certificates, we hold, had not been issued by the competent authority on the basis of the office records. The certificates does not lay down that the writ applicants worked for 240 days minimum for each year for two consecutive years. The respondents have also contended that the writ applicant No. 3 did not work at all under the respondents but one certificate had been procured somehow. There is every doubt if the competent authority issued the certificates of Sri Jayanta Chakraborty, writ applicant no. 1, Sri Bharat Rajak, writ applicant No. 2 and Sri Tapan Kumar Shee, writ applicant No. 3. The writ applicant No. 3 was not engaged at all under the respondents as per officer record. They could not show where or which unit of the field work/drill work they were attached to. There is dispute about the genuineness of the certificates. Real fact about the genuineness of the certificates could be ascertained by thorough enquiry only before the appropriate forum. There is no scope for holding such enquiry before the Tribunal or the Writ Court. For these reasons we hold that the Annexure p-11 could not be acted upon at all either before the Tribunal or before the writ Court.