2014 (10) TMI 1076 - HC - Income Tax

Regularization of casual employees - petitioners were engaged on temporary basis and sought a relief to the effect that a direction be issued to the respondents to formulate a policy in regard to regularize service of the petitioners alongwith other similarly situated persons in view of the fact that large number of posts were falling vacant - tribunal observed that the petitioners failed to produce all the requisite informations/ details to satisfy their claim for regularization in service HELD THAT - Since the petitioners failed to establish any legal right to the effect that their appointment was in accordance with law, the learned tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karanataka others Vs. Uma Devi (supra). 2006 (4) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT which provided that the employees who had rendered services continuously for ten years without the cover of the court's order be regularized as the onetime measure. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Administrative Tribunal regarding regularization of service and outsourcing of services.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization of their temporary service. The respondents argued that the petitioners were engaged casually without proper procedures like issuing advertisements or sponsorship by the Employment Exchange. The tribunal directed the petitioners to provide necessary details to support their claim for regularization. However, the petitioners failed to produce sufficient information, leading the tribunal to rely on the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi & others (2006) 4 SCC 1, which rendered the petitioners ineligible for regularization.

2. Another case considered by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur involved daily wage workers who filed a petition against a decision to outsource services like data entry, typing, cleaning, and security. The Central Board of Direct Taxes had instructed outsourcing of services for efficiency and economy. The tribunal dismissed the petitioners' application, stating that the decision to outsource was a policy decision in line with General Finance Rules (GFR) 178 and could not be challenged solely on the grounds of potential retrospective enforcement affecting employment. The petitioners' failure to provide appointment orders and unclear terms of service relationship with the respondents led to the dismissal of their application.

3. The judgment highlighted that since the petitioners could not establish a legal right regarding the lawfulness of their appointment, the tribunal rightfully rejected their application based on the precedent set in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it without any costs.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of following proper procedures for engagement and appointment to claim regularization of service. It also upheld the validity of outsourcing decisions made in the interest of efficiency and economy. The court's decision was based on legal precedents and the failure of the petitioners to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.