Facts
The applicant, Niranjan Behera, worked as a substitute Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Packer for a total of 97 days between October 2012 and January 2013
Source reference: p. 2He claimed that from January 11, 2013, until the filing of the OA in 2020, he worked continuously as an "outside Mazdoor" for 8 hours daily and completed 240 days of service per year
Source reference: p. 2Consequently, he sought conferment of "temporary status" and a declaration as a "Full Time Casual Labourer" under the Notification dated May 17, 1989
Source reference: p. 2-3The respondents contested this, stating he was a substitute engaged at the risk of a regular GDS and subsequently as a daily wage mazdoor who worked only 3 hours a day, failing to meet the 240-day requirement in any calendar year
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether a substitute engaged in place of a regular GDS has a legal right to claim temporary status or regularization.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 52. Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence to establish entitlement to "Full Time Casual Labourer" status based on duration and hours of work.
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 6Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle that a substitute has no inherent right to claim temporary status or regularization, as they are engaged at the risk and responsibility of a regular employee, citing Union of India Ors. v. Debika Guha Ors. (2000) and Prasant Kumar Srivastava v. UOI Ors. (2012)
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 5It also applied DGPT Letter No. 65-24/88-SPB.I dated 17.05.1989, which defines "Full Time Casual Labourers" as those engaged for no less than 8 hours a day, and "Part Time Casual Labourers" as those working less than 8 hours
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6Furthermore, the onus of proof lies on the applicant to establish the completion of 240 days in a calendar year through documentary evidence
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding his continuous service since 2013
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6Attendance records for 2019 and 2020 demonstrated that the applicant worked for only 169 and 150 days respectively, falling short of the mandatory 240-day threshold
Source reference: p. 3, 5Regarding the nature of work, the Tribunal noted the respondents’ denial that the applicant ever worked 8 hours a day, observing that since GDS duty hours are typically 3 hours, and the applicant produced no evidence to the contrary, he could not be classified as a Full Time Casual Labourer under the 1989 circular
Source reference: p. 6, para. 6Finally, the court reasoned that the applicant’s initial entry as a "substitute" precluded any right to regularization under established precedents
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The Tribunal answered the issues in the negative, holding that the applicant was neither eligible for temporary status nor the designation of Full Time Casual Labourer due to insufficient service days and lack of evidence regarding 8-hour work shifts
The Original Application was dismissed as being "devoid of any merit" and a "footless effort"
Source reference: p. 7, para. 7Original Court PDF
NIRANJAN BEHERAvsD/o Post
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in