Petitioner sought regularisation of services claiming temporary status under the 1993 DOPT Scheme. High Court barred the petition by res judicata, as similar grievances were previously adjudicated. Tribunal need not examine merits. Petition dismissed summarily.
The petition was dismissed in limine as meritless and barred by res judicata.
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.
$~26
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Pradeep Jha, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R % 04.04.2018
W.P.(C) 3180/2018 Page 1 of 7
The petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer in the SSC in the year 198990 and was disengaged in April, 1993 with directions to report to the Department of Education as a Waterman. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner and some other casual labourers had filed O.A. No.1145/1993, which was decided on 09.02.1998, with directions issued to the respondents to re-engage them in preference to juniors and outsiders. During the pendency of the said O.A., the petitioner was re-engaged by the respondents in the year 1994 and he continued to work thereafter.
W.P.(C) 3180/2018 Page 2 of 7
“9. It is clear from the above that the temporary status can now be granted only to such of the casual labourers, who were in employment on the date of commencement of the Scheme and they should have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, i.e., 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of offices having 5 days a week). It is an admitted position that the applicants were not in employment on the date of commencement of the Scheme. Obviously, they cannot now be granted temporary status under the provisions of this Scheme. The fact that Ashok Kumar or many others had been granted temporary status though they did not fulfil the necessary conditions stipulated therein, cannot become a ground for claiming the same benefit by other casual labourers.”
W.P.(C) 3180/2018 Page 3 of 7
would have to examine the position in law and file a fresh application before the Tribunal, if so advised.
W.P.(C) 3180/2018 Page 4 of 7
issuance of the O.M. and secondly, that only those casual labourers would be considered eligible, who had rendered continuous service of at least one year, i.e., 240 days or 206 days in case of offices observing 5 days in a week. It was urged before the Tribunal that though the petitioner had completed 206 days’ service in the year 1991, but he was not in position as on 10.09.1993 and therefore, did not fulfil one of the twin mandatory conditions laid down in the Scheme. Reliance was also placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Pal (supra), wherein it was held that the Scheme of 1993 is not an ongoing Scheme and temporary status can be conferred on casual labourers under the Scheme only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in Clause 4 of the said Scheme.
W.P.(C) 3180/2018 Page 5 of 7
not be permitted to reagitate the same issue and file a fresh O.A. based on the same cause of action, when no subsequent developments were brought out therein. That being the position, we are of the opinion that it was not necessary for the Tribunal to express a view on the merits of the case. The respondents’ plea that the O.A. was barred by res judicata was valid and sufficient to dismiss the O.A. filed by the petitioner, purely on the ground of maintainability. We may also note that the petitioner had also filed a review application before the Tribunal for seeking review of the order dated 31.10.2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2017.
W.P.(C) 3180/2018 Page 6 of 7
“..... However, we make it clear that the Scheme of 1.9.1993 is not an on going Scheme and the temporary status can be conferred on the casual labourers under that Scheme only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in Clause 4 of the Scheme, namely, they should have been casual labourers in employment as on the date of the commencement of the Scheme and they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year, i.e., at least 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of offices having 5 days in a week). We also make it clear that those who have already been given temporary status on the assumption that it is an on going Scheme shall not be stripped of the temporary status pursuant to our decision.”
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is dismissed in limine as meritless alongwith the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
APRIL 04, 2018 rkb/ „st‟/ na
W.P.(C) 3180/2018 Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can file a fresh Original Application after being barred by res judicata for the same cause of action.
Whether the DoPT Scheme of 1993 applies to casual labourers who were not in employment on the date of its commencement.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation and consequential benefits despite failing the twin conditions of the Scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
UOI and Ors. vs. Mohan PalRelied on¶15
UOI and Ors. vs. Mohan Pal, (2002) 4 SCC 573 · Who else cites this
O.P. Tiwari vs. UOI and Anr.Distinguished¶34
W.P.(C) 16760/2004
LALAN RAI
UNION OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI
PRATIBHA RANI
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
