- (1.) These petitions are disposed of by a common order since the questions raised are the same. Pursuant to a bilateral agreement between the government of India and the government of Nepal various works in Nepal were undertaken by the government of India on behalf of Nepal government, in particular, the road construction. In execution of the said projects several persons including these petitioners came to be appointed. They are of four categories, namely, (1 Nepal-based muster-roll workers, (2 Nepal-based regular establishment comprising of LDCs (Classes III and IV) such as khalasis, Jamadars, Cooks etc. , (3 Nepal-based regular classified staff, and (4 Nepal-based work-charged establishment. After the completion of the projects when termination notices were issued, they filed the writ petitions under Article 32 seeking to quash them and also for declaration that they belong to the Nepal-based category of CPWD employees of the government of India. That they are entitled to equal terms on a par with CPWD employees working in India in particular of continuity of service and right to promotion etc. on an integrated basis and consequential benefits that would ensue therefrom. Pending writ petitions this court had given certain directions which were implemented. When the matter had come up on 15/11/1994 for hearing, this court directed the respondents to file an affidavit by a competent officer stating on oath as to what are the reliefs as originally asked for remain for consideration after complying with the directions given by this court from time to time. Pursuant thereto, Mr P. K. Majumdar. Suptd. Engineer (Head Qrts. ) CPWD (Food Zone) filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents. Therein he had stated that with a view to put an end to the ongoing agitation between the Nepal-based workmen and the government, MRM Karamchari Union which had espoused the case was called for settlement. After prolonged negotiations the Union had entered into initial settlement with the government of India on 25/10/1981 and final settlement on 9/6/1983. In furtherance thereof directions were given to the appropriate officers to comply with the terms of the settlement. It was also stated that subsequently representation was made to the government of India that the President and the secretary of the Union were not competent to make the settlement on behalf of the workmen and that, therefore, the settlement entered into by them does not bind the workmen. It was also stated that at the time when the settlement was entered into, the President and the secretary were the competent persons- Since the settlement is beneficial to them. all the benefits were confirmed except in respect of five persona, who despite notices had not turned up even after the directions given by this court. It is not known whether they had also presented themselves before the Chief Engineer pursuant to the second direction issued by this court on 20/5/1984. The terms of the settlement also have been enclosed as part of the record.
(2.) Shri Mukhoty, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Chief Engineer working in Nepal had written in letter of the year 1966 to the Chief Engineer, CPWD. New Delhi wherein he had admitted that the workers working in Nepal are part of the establishment of cpwd and they are so entitled to overtime payment. since from the inception they were treated to be CPWD employees. The CPWD manual gets attracted to the employers thoughthey are working in Nepal. In support thereof, he placed reliance, in particular on Section 1 of Ch. 3 and also the Recruitment Rules of the CPWD employees in Appendix 5 of the manual at p. 206. It is his contention that since the construction of the highways in Nepal were undertaken by the CPWD and the new zone in that behalf had been established in the year 1964. The petitioners having been recruited from time to time in that zone and having been allowed to continue them till the execution of the works, they became members of the CPWD under government of India's control and that therefore, they are regular employees and their services cannot be terminated on completion of the works in Nepal.
(3.) Shri V. C. Mahajan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioners were never treated as members of the establishment within the Indian territory. They were recruited to construct the works in Nepal undertaken pursuant to bilateral agreement between the government of India and the government of Nepal and they were always treated as a separate class. On completion of the construction work termination orders were issued. They were no longer to be treated as members of the establishment of CPWD working in India and that therefore they cannot get the reliefs sought for. However, with a view to put an end to the prolonged agitation by the Union, an agreement was entered into. Pursuant thereto all the terms and conditions were implemented. Since many of the Indian employees who were regularly recruited are seniors or permanent employees, the petitioners working in Nepal in the work-charged establishment, etc. , cannot be treated as regular employees of the CPWD, and if 50 done the seniority of the Indian employees would be adversely affected. Therefore in para 7 of the settlement to obviate such piquant situation for the purpose of seniority, appointments are treated to be fresh ones. For all other purposes they were given the benefits like pension etc, as mentioned in the settlement. Therefore, practically the reliefs sought for have been granted to them under the settlement.;