AMAR NATH CHOWDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the benefit of reading the draft judgment of my learned Brother and I record my concurrence with the order passed by His Lordship, however, I wish to add a few words of my own. The fact of the case has been recorded in details by my learned Brother, the summary of which is that the applicants worked as casual workers in the establishment of Geographical Survey of India and they performed their duties in various positions such as clerk, machine operator, cable operator, store keeper etc. They rendered continuous service for 206 days or: more in a single year or in two consecutive years from the date of 1984 until they were disengaged by an order dated 17th May, 1990. They claimed that by virtue of Office Memorandum dated 26th October, 1994 they were entitled to be regularized instead of being disengaged going by the number of days they worked. Being aggrieved by the order of disengagement 35 casual workers along with the present applicants filed an application before the learned Tribunal being O.A. No. 726 of 1990. The said application was heard and disposed of upon contest by an order dated 17th February, 1994. By the said order dated 17th February, 1994 the respondent -authority was directed amongst others, to review the working of all other remaining applicants except applicant No. 23 therein and if, their period of service is within the criteria fixed in the circular they shall be regularized; if any opportunity arises for engagement of casual workers, the respondent -administration shall consider the cases of the applicants for such engagement along with others keeping in view of the length of service they are putting and experience earned thereby. The said direction was not carried out at the first instance by the respondent, so a contempt application was filed and thereafter the respondent -authority in terms of the order dated. 17th February, 1994 considered the respective eases including applicants herein and passed several orders all dated 28th February, 1997. By those orders the claim and contention of all the applicants have been rejected. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed in compliance of the said order dated 17th February, 1994 the applicants herein filed subsequent application being O.A. No. 691 of 1997 on which the impugned order was passed. The said application was contested by the respondents. Upon hearing, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application observing that the claim and contention of the applicants have been considered by the respondent authority appropriately and in accordance with the scheme and policy decision. The learned Tribunal observed that reasons given by the respondent -authority are acceptable. It is recorded and observed by the learned Tribunal that some of the applicants though rendered their services for. minimum number of working days in a year they were over -aged at the time of initial engagement in terms of the norms while rest of the applicants did not render their services for minimum number of days in a year as per this office memorandum.

(2.) THUS , the question posed before us is whether the learned Tribunal has correctly examined several orders in the context of the judgment and order passed by it previously and the office memorandum as recorded in the earlier judgment dated 17th February, 1994 or not.

(3.) IN the said circular it is provided as has been observed by the learned Tribunal that any casual employee putting more than 206 days of service in a years or in two consecutive years is entitled to be regularized. The respondents were directed to consider the case by the judgment and order dated 17th February, 1994 in the light of the Circular dated 7th June, 1988. The respondent -authority, it appears, considered the cases of the applicants herein individually and separately in the manner as follows: