BIMALA KALITA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of temporary status under the Scheme issued by the Department of Personnel and Training called the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation), Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993. The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench seeking relief for regularisation of service in terms of para 53 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as for grant of temporary status under the aforesaid Scheme of 1993. The same having been negated by Order dated 03.07.2015 in O.A. No. 279 of 2013, the present writ petition has been instituted.

(2.) The Scheme was brought into force with effect from 01.09.1993 and made applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India and their attached and subordinate offices on the date of its issue, excluding those casual workers employed in Railways, Department of Tele-communication and Department of Posts. Clause 4(i) being the edifice for deciding the present case, may be reproduced:

(3.) Records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a Manager in the Accountant General (Audit) Assam Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd. from April, 1992 by virtue of the appointment order issued by the Secretary of the said Employees Co-operative. It was only in December, 1993 the said canteen was departmentalised and the petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wage Labourer in the departmental canteen as well as for typing work from January, 1994 to August, 2008. Such engagement as Daily Wage Labourer was discontinued and from September, 2008 to March, 2011 she was engaged on typing work on contractual basis. For the period from May, 2011 to March, 2013 the petitioner worked under a private agency and not under the office of the respondent authority. Records reveal that in the written statement filed by the respondent authority before the Tribunal, stand taken is that the Scheme of 1993 is not applicable as the petitioner was engaged as Daily Wage Labourer and not as a Casual Labourer through Employment Exchange.