MUZAFFER AHMED KASHOO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is in the service of respondents as Casual Labourer since 1986 and the other two petitioners too are in the service of Food Corporation of India, as Casual Labourers since 1990-91 (Annexure-A). Petitioners have been working as such as Casual Labourers and discharging duties in different capacities all along. The case of petitioners was also recommended by their immediate officers for regularisation. But, as there was no response from the other side, petitioners filed writ petition 262 of 1996, which was disposed of by Order dated September 10, 1997 by learned single Bench of this Court in terms of order as under : In the circumstances, official respondents are directed to consider petitioners case for regularisation of their services taking in regard the award of the Central Administrative Tribunal in case Surinder Kumar v. Food Corporation of India and pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with rules within three months from the date of receipt of this order. This petition stands disposed of at its admission to hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties."

(2.) As follow up, respondent No. 3 Senior Regional Manager of Food Corporation of India, headquartered at Jammu. declined to regularise the petitioners vide order dated February 04, 1998 (Annexure-H). This order is under challenge in this petition. The order is alleged to have been passed in colourable exercise of power without carrying out the mandates of the Court direction. The excellent work done by the petitioner in most trying circumstances when the employees of the Corporation migrated from Valley en masse has not been considered. The satisfactory and laudable work done by the petitioners and even appreciated by their immediate officers and even reflected in communications recommending petitioners case for regularisation has been wholly ignored. After all the case of petitioners who have worked for long 12 to 15 years and served devotedly the Food Corporation of India in keeping it going in the valley cannot be brushed aside so lightly. Petitioners having worked regularly for years together and having rendered the job with trappings of a permanent nature cannot be shown the door in disregard to law, rules, equity and justness of petitioners case. Respondent-Food Corporation of India by not applying its mind properly and considering the case in right perspective has failed to discharge their legal obligation to carry out the order, directions under law. Independently whether petitioners case falls within the sweep of circular EP l(4)25-Vol II dated May 6, 1987, as referred in award given by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh in Surinder Kumar and others v. Food Corporation of India and others, the competent authority was to consider the petitioners case on its own merits, as mandate by Writ Court Judgment dated September 10, 1997. Petitioners case has been dealt with artificially and not considered on its merits accompanied by attending circumstances and the prevalent situation, when the petitioners were engaged and the adverse conditions in which they have been working all along.

(3.) The main defence of respondents in reply is, that the order dated September 10, 1997 of the writ Court is confined to grant of considerations to petitioners case in terms of the award of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh in Surinder Kumars case. This award in terms provides that the case of petitioners to that award were covered by circular (Ex. W. 11) dated May 6, 1987. in as-much-as, those petitioners had put in three months service on cut off date namely May 2, 1986, the pre-requisite for regularisation of service. In this case petitioners have been engaged and are in the service of Food Corporation of India, as such, Casual Labourers from 1986 to 1990 and. in any case not earlier to cut off date of May 2, 1986. The petitioners case has been thus considered and is rejected by the Senior- Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, (Respondent No. 3).