- (1.) BEING having same issue under adjudication, this batch of writ petitions is decided by this common order.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY , facts of the case are that the Department of Income Tax employed the respondent original applicants on different posts such as Peon, Chowkidar, Safai Karamchari and Data Entry Operator on casual basis. On 5.5.2010 the Member Secretary in the office of Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Jodhpur, invited tenders from service providers to supply personnels to serve as Peon, Chowkidar, Safai Karamchari and Date Entry Operator in the office of Director General, Income Tax (Investigation) Jodhpur unit. Apprehending removal from service the respondent original applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur by way of filing original applications to have a direction for petitioner respondent for not removing them from service and further to regularise their services. During the course of hearing of the original applications the claim for regularisation in service was not pressed. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal by judgments impugned restrained the petitioner respondent from removing the respondent original applicants from service by other substituted employee under any guise and cover. Being aggrieved by the same these petitions for writ are preferred by the Department of Income Tax.
(3.) IT is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government of India under an office memorandum dated 23rd November, 2005 (F. No. 7(2)/E -Coord/2005) decided to introduce certain measures relating to budget/expenditure management. The office memorandum aforesaid stresses the need for avoiding ostentatious expenditure in operating expenses for maintenance of buildings and office equipments, lighting conservancy, stationary, postage, foreign transfers, overtime allowance/honorarium, hiring of vehicles, telephone charges, petrol, oil and lubricants, seminars/conferences etc. The memorandum also emphasises that there shall be a ban on creation of a new post in all Ministries/Departments/Autonomous Institutions till further orders. The intention for reducing unwarranted expenditure has further been emphasised by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance under a letter dated 4.7.2011 with assertion that in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., : (2006)4 SCC 1, hiring of casual workers and thereafter regularisation of them in service is not proper. It is further submitted that as per Rule 178 of the General Finance Rules a ministry or department may outsource certain services in the interest of economy and efficiency. It is asserted that in light of the decision of the Government of India as per office memorandum dated 23.11.2005 and Rule 178 of the General Finance Rules the need of utilising services by outsourcing is in interest of the department, therefore, the tribunal erred while directing to continue the existing casual labourers in service. To substantiate the argument reliance is also placed upon a judgment of M.P. High Court in WP No. 1970/2014, decided on 7.10.2014 (Mahipal Singh v.; Union of India and Ors.). In the case aforesaid Hon'ble M.P. High Court while relying upon an earlier judgment given in the case of Laxmi Prasad Dubey and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 11.2.2013 (WP No. 22083/2012) dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the casual labourers working with Income Tax Department claiming regularisation in service. According to learned counsel for the department of Income Tax the tribunal failed to appreciate that the mode of employing/utilising services through service providers is a valid mode as per Rule 178 of the General Finance Rules. While opposing the petitions for writ it is submitted by Shri J.K. Kaushik appearing on behalf of the employees original applicants that no claim has been made by casual labourers for regularisation in service and the direction given by the tribunal is only for not removing them from service by employing other persons through service providers. It is asserted that the casual labourers are in employment of the petitioner respondent from last several years, therefore, their removal from service to employ other persons in the same capacity shall be unjust and arbitrary.;