LAWS(J&K)-2011-4-54

RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Decided On April 22, 2011
RAVINDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to order No. LAS/B/1133/ Confdl/CL/ dated 07.08.1998, whereby the petitioner has been disengaged as Casual Worker.

(2.) Briefly stated, petitioner's case is that the petitioner was engaged as Casual Labour by the respondents with effect from 18.01.1992 and continued to work, as such, with intermittent breaks till December 1993. The petitioner claims to have completed 206 days in a calendar year as Casual Labour in the year 1993 and thus to have been entitled to grant of temporary status as per Regularisation Scheme of 1993, vide memorandum No. DOP and POM No. 51016/2/90 -Estt/C dated 10.09.1993. It is averred that the petitioner, though not given temporary status as per Regularisation Scheme of 1993, was nonetheless again engaged as Casual Labour with effect from 04.02.1994, in the office of respondent No. 5, though a formal order was issued on 16th September 1994. The petitioner claims that respondent No. 5, in response to letter dated 17th July 1995, received from respondent No. 2, communicated the period the petitioner and others served as casual labourers, though the previous period as casual labourer with respondent No. 4, was not communicated to respondent No. 2. It is insisted that the petitioner had more than 240 days as casual labour to his credit in the year 1993, and such period in the year 1994 and 1995 was 266 days and 170 days respectively.

(3.) THE petitioner aggrieved of termination order dated 6th September 1996, whereby his services as casual labour were terminated filed a writ petition registered as SWP No. 3173/1996. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.06.1998, with a direction to respondents to dispose of representation made by petitioner in light of Regularisation Scheme of 1993 and to allow petitioner to continue till the representation was so decided. The petitioner aggrieved of order, in wake of writ court order, whereby his representation has been rejected and the petitioner disengaged, questions order on the following grounds: