- (1.) A bunch of writ petitions have been filed assailing order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 18.3.2010.
(2.) THESE employees were working in the Income Tax Department, and mostly were working in the capacity of Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator, Class IV Employees/Watchman or Office Boy. Their primary grievance was that they have been engaged by private agencies, who are normally called placement agencies, for performing the work which is being undertaken by them for last many years, and these are the methods that have been adopted by the respondents for engaging employees from different channels, and as they are being working for a long time, the nature of work being discharged by each of they is also perennial in nature and ordinarily they could be replaced only by employees of permanent nature. The learned Tribunal after taking note of the rival contentions of the parties finally disposed of a batch of OAs, and prior thereto a matter of such like nature came before the Tribunal in OA No. 27/2010 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 18.3.2010 and that travelled to this court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6360/2010 and an interim order was passed by this court on 17.5.2010, in compliance thereof they were allowed to continue and relying on the interim order of this court, the OAs filed later on before the Tribunal, also came to be disposed of in the light of earlier order of the Tribunal dated 18.3.2010. It is also informed that majority of such employees/writ petitioners, pursuant to the interim order of this court, are presently working.
(3.) IT has been informed that batch of writ petitions against order of the Tribunal came to be preferred by Union of India before the main seat at Jodhpur and those writ petitions, after hearing rival contentions of the parties came to be decided by judgment dated 19.3.2015, and we consider it appropriate to quote the operative part of the judgment hereunder: - - "True it is, the Government of India under the office memorandum dated 23.11.2005 desired to curtail unwarranted expenses and further emphasised not to regularise casual labourers, but that cannot be a reason to terminate the original applicants from service who are working on casual basis only and not claiming for regularisation of their service. The continuance of such employees shall in no case put any extra economic burden upon the employer. The persons who shall be employed through service providers shall also be entitled for same remuneration and the service provider too shall claim its commission, therefore, that will in no manner satisfy desire of the petitioner respondent to curtail expenses. On the other hand, removal of the respondent original applicants who are in service of the petitioners from several years shall be quite arbitrary as they will be thrown out of employment without any wrong on their part. The position would have been different if the petitioner would have been going to have regular recruitment against the posts occupied by the original applicants but that is not the case of the petitioner. The petitioner want to remove the original applicants from service just to have labour through contractor with a view to reduce expenditure but that object, as already stated, cannot be served as the applicants too are working on casual basis only. So far as Rule 178 of the General Finance Rules is concerned, suffice to mention that the mode of utilising services through outsourcing is always available to the petitioners but merely on that count services of the casual labourers already working are not required to be dispensed with. In our considered opinion, the Central Administrative Tribunal, thus, rightly directed the petitioner respondent not to remove the respondent original applicants from service by another substituted employees under any guise or cover. The petitions for writ hence are dismissed. It is made clear that the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal shall be applicable only for those employees who were working with the petitioner on casual basis on the date of disposal of the original applications. No order to costs.";