DHARANIDHAR PRADHAN Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application challenges the order dated November 12, 1997 passed in O. A.No. 350 of 1995 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.

(2.) Petitioner's case in brief is that, in response to the call of opposite party No. 3, the Divisional Manager, Telecommunication, he appeared at the Literacy Test for the post of Lineman and having been selected, he was allowed to work as the "Daily Rated Maj door" under opposite party No. 5 for the period from Februarys, 1986 to April 30, 1987. While he was working as such, without rhyme or reason, opposite party No. 6, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecommunication, by referring to the order dated March 11,1986 of the General Manager, Telecommunication, issued a notice dated May 27, 1986 removing him from the enrolment of Muster Roll (Annexure-1). Thereafter he approached the authorities on different occasions and was getting assurance that his case would be duly considered at appropriate time. When no response was received from the opposite parties, he was constrained to approach at the portals of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 430 of 1993. The Tribunal disposed of the application of the petitioner on May 4, 1994 with an observation that, whenever occasion arises in future, work may be given to him. The petitioner, after waiting for a long period, again approached the Tribunal in O.A.No. 350 of 1995 with a prayer to quash the order of his removal from the enrolment of the Muster Roll. His specific plea is that, since 1986 till filing of that application, though many juniors to him have been appointed by the Authorities, but he was discriminated against. The Tribunal disposed of the matter in its order dated November 12, 1997 with an observation that, the application is not maintainable before it. The Tribunal further observed that the petitioner may pursue the matter before the appropriate forum set up under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Against this order of the Tribunal, the petitioner as indicated above, has filed this writ application.

(3.) The opposite parties 1 to 6 jointly filed their counter-affidavit stating therein that as there was no vacancy under the disposal of the opposite parties, the question of absorbing the petitioner did not arise. Their further plea is that, all kinds of casual engagement since March 30, 1985 for general and from June 22, 1988 for Coaxial Cable Project and Civil wing etc. had been banned by the Government of India. They also plead, that the petitioner was not discharging his duties since 1987 as Casual Majdoor under them. The opposite parties aver that since presently there is no vacancy, nor is there any necessity for engagement of Daily -Rated Majdoor, the question of reengagement of the petitioner or his regularisation does not arise. The Government of India also decided to entrust all works of the Department to Contractors. Therefore, there is no necessity to engage the petitioner under the Daily Rated Majdoor.