A former casual labourer sought regularization under the Department of Telecommunications' 1989 Casual Labourers Scheme after the Tribunal dismissed his claim. The court found no evidence he was on the department's rolls on the scheme's cut-off date of 1 October 1989 and upheld the Tribunal's orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
18.03.2025 (D/L-3) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.)
W.P.C.T. 124 of 2023
Prithis Kumar Naskar Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Tarun Kanti Halder, Mr. G. S. Kaderi
...for the Petitioner
Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. D.S.G.I., Mr. Rivu Dutta ...for the Respondent No. 1 Mr. Sudipto Panda, Ms. Jayshri Jha ...for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7
2
subject matter of the present proceedings. The petitioner claimed grant of temporary status/regularization in terms of the scheme called “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989” (hereinafter referred to as the 1989 scheme).
3
is applicable to casual labourers “employed” by the Department of Telecommunications. Therefore, there can be no dispute that the petitioner was employed as casual labourer by the Department of Telecommunications on 1st , October, 1989 when the scheme came into vogue. Petitioner has been shown as a casual labourer even in the much later communication dated 10th September, 1998, considered above.
4
labourer against a specific jobs from June, 1999 through a contractor, who is making his payment also.
5
Telecommunications. Clause 5 of the 1989 scheme is also relevant. This further clarifies the scope and applicability of the scheme. Clause 5(i) reads as follows:
“5. Temporary Status
i) Temporary Status would be conferred on all the casual labourers currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (200 days in the case of offices observing five day week). Such casual labourers will be designated as Temporary Mazdoor.”
6
labourer on the date of coming into force of the 1989 scheme, being the cut off date (1st October, 1989). In this regard we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the communication dated 10th September, 1998 relied upon by the petitioner is only a communication calling upon certain persons named therein including the petitioner to consider their pending cases. thereafter the petitioner’s claim was considered and he was not found eligible for grant of temporary status or regularization. It is not the petitioner’s case that he was thereafter even recommended for regularization, late alone be conferred with any temporary status or regularization.
counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not even produced a chit of paper to show that on the date of coming into force of the 1989 scheme, he was being paid any emoluments as a departmental casual labour. From the statement dated 28th May, 1999 it is evident that the petitioner was employed as a departmental casual labourer only in between 1992 to 1999. Thus the stand of the respondents that he was not a casual labour on the date of coming into force of the 1989 scheme merits consideration, and has rightly been accepted by the
7
Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly proceeded to conclude that since the petitioner was not on the roles of the department on 1st October, 1989, he was not entitled to benefits of regularization under the 1989 scheme.
by the Central Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 1 of 2011. The order of Central Administrative Tribunal passed on the review application bearing R.A. No. 11 of 2016, also does not require any interference as the review has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner by filing the review has effectively sought a rehearing of the issue, which is beyond the scope of review.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was employed as a departmental casual labourer on 1st October 1989, the cut-off date for coverage under the 1989 DoT scheme.
Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing his claim for temporary status and regularization and in rejecting his review.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prithis Kumar Naskar
The Union of India
Madhuresh Prasad
Supratim Bhattacharya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
