Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6176 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP [C] No.14975 of 2005)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. … Appellant
Vs.
Sri Narayana Thimmappa Madivel … Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel.
2. The first respondent was hired on daily wage basis,
for miscellaneous work on 1.8.1998 by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Telegraphs, Kumta (Karwar District). No order of
appointment was issued and he was paid from the contingency
account. The respondent’s services were discontinued with
effect from 1.4.2000. Feeling aggrieved the respondent
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal contending
that he ought to have been given temporary status. The
Tribunal directed the department to consider first
Respondent’s request. Accordingly, the appellant, successor
of telecom department considered the case of first
2
respondent and passed an order dated 16.8.2001 rejecting
the request for temporary status. The order stated that he
was hired under the contingency expenditure account; that
only casual mazdoors were entitled to conferment of
temporary status; that recruitment of casual mazdoors was
stopped with effect from 30.3.1985; that as first
respondent was not employed as casual mazdoor, he was not
entitled to conferment of temporary status. The first
respondent challenged the said order in OA No.1262/2001
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and
prayed for a direction to the appellant to grant him
temporary status. The Tribunal, by order dated 6.2.2002
allowed the said application, quashed the order dated
16.8.2001 and directed the appellant to grant him temporary
status from the due date in terms of the scheme dated
7.11.1989. That order was affirmed by the High Court by
order dated 13.1.2005. The said order is challenged in this
appeal by special leave.
3. The scheme dated 7.11.1989 referred to by the Tribunal
is the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regulation) Scheme, 1989 of the Telecom department. That
was a Scheme for conferring contemplated “temporary status
on casual labourers who are currently employed and have
3
rendered continuous service of at least one year”.
Interpreting a similar Scheme this Court had held that such
a Scheme could not be considered as a continuous on going
Scheme intended to give temporary status to all casual
workers as and when they completed continuous service for
the period prescribed in the said scheme; that such schemes
were one-time Schemes under which persons who were in
employment on the date of commencement of the Scheme and
who had rendered the prescribed continuous service were
entitled to temporary status and the scheme did not
postulate grant of temporary status to casual workers who
were subsequently employed, as and when they completed
continuous service for the prescribed period. (See : Union
of India vs. Mohan Lal – 2002 (4) SCC 573). The said
principle applies to the 1989 scheme of the telecom
department also. Therefore the Tribunal could not have
relied on the 1989 scheme to direct conferment of temporary
status to respondent who was engaged on 1.8.1998.
4. The Respondent had also relied on a departmental
circular dated 29.9.2000 in his application before the
Tribunal. In fact the respondent admitted that the said
circular contemplated giving temporary status to those who
were engaged earlier to 1.8.1998. The said circular, in no
4
way helps the respondent. The Circular of Telecom
Department dated 29.9.2000 stated that the department’s
letter dated 12.2.1999 granted temporary status to casual
labourers eligible as on 1.8.1998, and all casual labourers
not eligible for temporary status on 1.8.1998 were to be
disengaged forthwith. The Circular dated 29.9.2000 does not
say that those engaged on 1.8.1998 shall be given temporary
status. A person engaged on 1.8.1998 cannot be considered
as having become eligible for temporary status on 1.8.1998
itself. It is apparent that to become eligible for grant of
temporary status, the candidate must have been in service
as on 1.8.1998 and should have worked as casual labourer
continuously for the period prescribed in the letter dated
12.2.1999, as on 1.8.1998. The respondent admittedly was
not engaged as casual labourers prior to 1.8.1998. As the
respondent was engaged only on 1.8.1998 and was not in
service for a continuous period of one year prior to that
date, he was not entitled to grant of temporary status even
under the letter dated 12.2.1999 read with circular dated
29.9.2000. This aspect has been completely lost sight of by
the Tribunal and the High Court.
5. The appellant also contended that the appointment of
respondent was not as a casual labourer. In view of what is
5
stated above, it is not necessary to examine as to whether
the first respondent was a casual labourer or not.
6. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the
orders of the Tribunal and the High Court and dismiss the
application filed by the respondent claiming temporary
status.
………………………….………………………J
[R. V. Raveendran]
…………………………………………………….J
[J M Panchal]
New Delhi;
October 17, 2008.