- (1.) Petitioners in both the matters claimed to have been engaged by the authority as casual workers. They approached the Tribunal for their regularization. Tribunal rejected their prayer. Hence, this application. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal as well as before us was as follows:- i) They were engaged against regular vacancy in terms of Government Order dated 7th June, 1988 appearing at pages 126-127 of the petition. ii) They were similarly circumstanced with one Saktipada Das, Rekha Kundu and Bablu Bagni who were regularized and absorbed in regular post. iii) There was no specified mode of appointment in respect of Group-D employees. Once they continuously worked for years together they were entitled to absorption and/or regularization. iv) Following paragraph 53 of the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1their regular appointments could be regularized. Since, the petitioners were engaged in regular vacancy they were entitled to be absorbed in such vacant post.
(2.) In the case of Sukhen (O.A. 153 of 2003) vide judgment and order dated June 19,2009 the Tribunal considered the factual matrix and held that the applicants were engaged on no-work no-pay basis. On an average Sukhen worked 136 days in a year. Similar was the case of Kesto. As per the D.O.P.T. instruction they were neither entitled to the temporary status nor entitled to regularization. Their claim could not be considered in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Karnataka . The Tribunal also held that there was no reason to hold it otherwise as was held earlier. Pertinent to note, in case of Sukhen, Tribunal earlier dismissed application vide judgment and order dated September 19, 2003. Sukhen approached this Court by filing Tribunal's application being WPCT 713 of 2004. This Court vide order dated April 29,2008 directed the order of the Tribunal to be kept in abeyance and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh CHN 2012(3) 1/3 hearing keeping in view the documents furnished by the applicants before the High Court. The Tribunal at the time of re-hearing considered the documents and came to the same conclusion.
(3.) The decision in the case of Sukhen was applied in the case of Kesto as Kesto was similarly circumstanced. The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated July 20,2009 in the case of Kesto Mukherjee (O.A. 161 of 2003) observed that identical prayer was considered by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 153 of 2003 (Sukhen Tunga) and the case of Kesto being common should also be dismissed.;