Decided on April 20,2018

The Union Of India And Others Appellant
Jiten Chandra Bhuyan And Others Respondents


A.M.BUJOR BARUA, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant SGI for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. HK Das, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The respondents, herein, claim to be working in the Office of the Director, Doordarshan Kendra Guwahati on a casual basis. The respondent No.1 claims to have joined as a casual worker on 02.11.1992, the respondent No.2 on 02.02.1993, the respondent No.3 on 01.07.1992, respondent No.4 on 03.08.1993 and the respondent No.5 on 01.03.1992. It is the common claim of all the respondents that they have worked for more than 240 days in a year and, therefore, are entitled to the benefit of a temporary status, which ultimately may lead to a regularization. The respondents rely upon a scheme adopted by the petitioner authorities called Department of Personnel and Training, Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme. Clause 4 of the said scheme is as under: "......4. Temporary Status. (i). Temporary Status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered; a continuous service of atleast one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of atleast 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week)."
(3.) In the aforesaid premises, a prayer was made in the writ petition for grant of temporary status w.e.f. 04.10.2000 and for regularization of their services thereafter. The petitioner authorities had filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein the various periods for which the respondents had worked was stated and accordingly, took the stand that they had worked for 240 days in a given year. In the said affidavit, the petitioner authorities had also annexed a communication dated 26.02.2015 from the Senior Administrative Officer for the Additional Director General (P) addressed to the Director General, Doordarshan. The said communication pertains to the request for temporary status/regularization of the services of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. In the communication, it was stated that the respondent No.1 had worked for 130 days from July 1992 to December 1992 and for 114 days from January 1993 to June 1993. Similarly, it was stated that the respondent No.5 had worked for 86 days from May, 1992 to October, 1992 and 146 days from January, 1993 to November, 1993. It was also stated that the respondent No.2 had worked for 136 days from July, 1992 to October, 1992 and for 131 days from January, 1993 to December, 1993 and that the respondent No.4 had worked for 14 days in 1993. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.