UNION OF INDIA Vs. GAGAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India calls in question legality of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by it. By the impugned order the High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition and in effect affirmed the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal), though it did not specifically refer to it.

(2.) Factual background needs to be stated in brief: Respondent filed an original application before the Tribunal claiming that he was engaged as a casual labourer for quite sometime and has been disengaged by verbal order on 31.12.2000. According to him, he had completed the requisite period of service for grant of temporary status. According to him his case is clearly covered by the Scheme circulated by Department of Personnel and Training (in short DOPT) in the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions. It was claimed that the department had circulated by O.M. No. 51016/2/90-Estt. (C) dated 10.9.1993 a scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers. The Scheme is called Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993. The said scheme came into force with effect from 1.9.1993. The Scheme envisaged grant of temporary status to casual labourer who had worked at least 240 days in a year (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days a week). According to the respondent he had completed the requisite period in the year 1998, and, therefore, was eligible for grant of temporary status. Present appellant took the stand before the Tribunal that the scheme was not on-going scheme but was applicable to those casual labourers who were in the employment on the date of issue of the O.M. and had rendered continuous service of the requisite period. The Tribunal accepted the employees stand and directed that the employee be accorded temporary status from 1998 when he had completed the requisite period of 206 days engagement. Direction was given to grant consequential benefits (including the minimum of the appropriate scale) as his emoluments and for consideration of the case of regularization. The appellant filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court and questioned correctness of the order. The High Court by its impugned order dismissed the writ petition. The High Court recorded practically no reason for the dismissal except noting that the workman had worked as causal labourer from 1995 to 2000.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in its view and the High Court did not take note of the submissions made, and by a cryptic non-reasoned order has dismissed the writ petition.