RAJESH KARSANBHAI UTEKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. J. S. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service of notice of RULE. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal passed in MCA No. 41 of 2003 in O.A.No. 209 of 1997. The petitioners were working as casual labourers in Telecom Department. They were not absorbed in service. They were not granted temporary status. Since the respondents were not conferred temporary status as casual labourers and were not absorbed in service, therefore, casual labourers filed Special Leave Petition directly before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to frame a scheme for grant as temporary status and absorption to the casual labourers in accordance with directions of the Apex Court.

(2.) TELECOM Department framed a scheme on 12.2.1989. In pursuance of the scheme, various casual labourers were granted temporary status and were subsequently absorbed. It appears that similarly situated other employees preferred claim which went upto the Apex Court and the Apex Court came to the conclusion that casual labourers have been engaged by the TELECOM Department under a scheme which was a continuous scheme. Therefore, the Apex Court directed the respondents to grant temporary status under the scheme framed by the TELECOM Department on 12.2.1989. However, the petitioners were not granted temporary status under the scheme and the services of the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners challenged their termination afresh by way of amendment. They further sought to amend the Original Application that the scheme framed by the TELECOM Department in the year 1989 was continuous scheme and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for being treated to be workmen of temporary status and absorption in the service. The respondent department contended that the scheme framed by the TELECOM Department under the direction of the Apex Court was a one time scheme and was not a continuous scheme. The Tribunal has rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioners on the ground that it changes the nature of the case and the amendment sought by the petitioners was barred by limitation.