2014 (7) TMI 916 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge to the order of Central Administrative Tribunal - oral termination - petitioner was orally appointed as a sweeper - petitioner completed more than 240 days of service - Held that - When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. - writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits - decided against the petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of oral termination of the petitioner.
2. Entitlement to regularization under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993.
3. Delay in filing the writ petition.
4. Applicability of precedents cited by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Oral Termination:
The petitioner was orally appointed as a sweeper and claimed continuous service from 01/01/1993 until his oral termination on 30/08/2001. He challenged this termination in Original Application No. 663 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), which was dismissed on 28/11/2003. The petitioner sought reinstatement and regularization of his services but failed to convince the Tribunal.

2. Entitlement to Regularization:
The petitioner argued that he was entitled to regularization under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993, which came into force on 01/09/1993. The scheme conferred temporary status on casual laborers who had rendered continuous service for at least one year, including 240 days of work. The petitioner claimed he met these criteria. However, the respondents countered that the petitioner did not complete 240 days of continuous service by 01/09/1993, as required by the scheme. The Tribunal found that the petitioner had only worked for 233 days intermittently between 01/01/1993 and 09/09/1993, thus not fulfilling the scheme's requirements.

3. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:
The petitioner filed the writ petition seven years after the C.A.T. judgment, citing efforts to bring other applicants together and collect money as reasons for the delay. The respondents argued that this delay was inordinate and unexplained. The court found the petitioner's reasons to be a "lame excuse" and deemed the delay inordinate, thus not warranting condonation.

4. Applicability of Precedents:
The petitioner relied on several judgments, including those of the C.A.T. in the cases of Uday Madhukar Kadam and Shashikant Suhash Vilankar, and the Supreme Court cases of Bhagwati Prasad and The workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. The court distinguished these cases on facts, noting that in the cited C.A.T. cases, the applicants had completed 240 days of continuous service and were still employed at the time of their applications. In contrast, the petitioner had not completed the required 240 days and approached the C.A.T. post-termination. The Supreme Court precedents were also found inapplicable as they did not involve a similar scheme.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the C.A.T.'s judgment, finding no error or perversity. The petition was dismissed on grounds of both delay and merit, with no order as to costs. The rule was discharged accordingly.

← Previous Next →