UNION OF INDIA Vs. GURMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1 filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench pleading that against 35 sanctioned posts of Peons of the petitioners' department (office of Comptroller and Auditor General), only 10 incumbents are working on casual basis, 18 on casual/daily wage basis, while 2 are working on regular basis. Five regularly sanctioned posts were stated to be lying vacant. The services of the daily wage basis employee Peons were terminated while retaining juniors or engaging fresh hands and, thus, the plea was that one daily wager ought not to be replaced by another daily wager when there was nothing against the work and conduct of the earlier daily wager, giving a complete go-bye to the well established principle of 'first come last go'. The petitioner claimed to have longest length of service amongst Peons working on daily wage basis without any complaint against his work and conduct and, thus, assailed the actions of the petitioners in disengaging his services by retaining his juniors or engaging fresh hands. The Tribunal, as an interim measure, by an order dated 1.12.2008 directed that respondent No. 1 should continue in service, in case his juniors have been retained till the next date of hearing.

(2.) The petitioners sought to deny any legal right of respondent No. 1 by alleging that a daily wager does not hold any post. It was pleaded that casual workers are engaged on seasonal requirement basis and cannot be entrusted with the job of a regular Group 'D' employee.

(3.) The Tribunal opined, in terms of the impugned order dated 2.2.2009, that respondent No. 1 had been appointed as a casual worker on daily wage basis in the year 2004 i.e. 4 years prior to his approaching the Tribunal. He has put in more years of service than persons retained by the petitioners and since persons junior to the respondent No. 1 have been retained, it was not legal for the petitioners to ignore the principle of' last come first go' while dispensing with the services of the daily wager. A seniority list of daily wagers was directed to be prepared. The Tribunal also took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, 2006 4 SCC 1, while observing that the department might have framed some policy for regularisation of persons who are working for more than 10 years, if their appointment was not a back door entry and not irregular.