Allowed¶75

Union of India v. a.Mohandas

Kerala HC3 Mar 2025OP (CAT)/108/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OP(CAT) 108/2017, Kerala High Court, 05.06.2024, Amit Rawal & Easwaran S. JJ. — Union of India/Dept. of Posts v. part-time scavenger casual labourers; CAT Ernakulam O.A. 85/2014 order dated 24.06.2016 set aside; Department of Posts (Group 'D' Posts) Recruitment Rules 2002 Column 11 (25% casual labourer quota) and Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules 2010; 480-day deeming of part-time as full-time casual labourers; appointments after 01.09.1993 cutoff disentitled applicants; Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction; O.A. dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Original Petition allowed; order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.85/2014 dated 24.6.2016 set aside; Original Application dismissed; no order as to costs. ¶75

Union of India Vs a.Mohandas — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Original Petition allowed; order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.85/2014 dated 24.6.2016 set aside; Original Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶75

Issue for consideration

Whether part-time casual labourers who have served more than 480 days must, for the purpose of recruitment, be deemed to have completed one year of service as full-time casual labourers on a conjoint reading of Annexures-A3 and A9, thereby entitling them to claim the benefit of the Annexure-A3 Recruitment Rules. +2 more

¶55

Ratio / Principle

As per the appointment orders produced before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondents/applicants were appointed after 01.09.1993.

¶71

Key takeaways

A wrong question was posed before the Tribunal, which resulted in the impugned order; the Tribunal completely went wrong in addressing the crucial issue of filling the vacancies.ratio¶71
Even assuming for a moment that the applicants were eligible to be considered as full-time casual labourers, the Tribunal did not address the crucial issue whether the Rules entitled applicants appointed after 01.09.1993 to claim appointment.ratio¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Kerala, OP (CAT) No.108 of 2017, decided 05.06.2024 (Amit Rawal & Easwaran S., JJ.; judgment by Easwaran S., J.). Postal authorities challenged the CAT Ernakulam order dated 24.06.2016 in O.A. No.85/2014, which had directed promotion of two part-time scavengers/casual labourers (appointed by memos dated 31.10.1998 and 16.5.2000) to Group-D posts against vacancies reserved for casual labourers under the 25% quota in Column 11 of the Department of Posts (Group 'D' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002 (Annexure-A3). Held: per the appointment orders, the applicants were appointed after 01.09.1993; a wrong question was posed before the Tribunal resulting in the impugned order; even assuming part-time casual labourers with over 480 days of service were to be deemed full-time casual labourers (Annexures-A3 read with A9), the Tribunal failed to address whether the Rules entitled persons appointed after 01.09.1993 to claim appointment; the Recruitment Rules did not apply to the applicants, and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief they were not entitled to. Original Petition allowed; CAT order set aside; Original Application dismissed; no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 108 OF 2017

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2016 IN OA NO.85 OF
2014 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶8

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI.

¶10

2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.

¶11

3 CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

4 SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT RMS ‘TV’ DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 036.

¶13

5 SUPERINTENDENT RMS, ‘CT’ DIVISION, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

BY ADVS.
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC

¶15

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS:

¶16

1 A.MOHANDAS

¶17

S/O.THE LATE ARU, WORKING AS PART-TIME SCAVENGER,
SUB RECORD OFFICER, ‘RMS’ CT DIVISION,PALAKKAD
RESIDING AT KENNOTH PARAMBU, CIVIL STATION BACK,
PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶18

2 V.SINDHU S/O.THE VELA WORKING AS PART-TIME SCAVANGER,SUB RECORD OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM,RESIDING AT ERAPPAKODE HOUSE, THEKKUMURY, KELLEPPULLY, PALAKKAD 678 005.

¶19

BY ADVS.

¶20

SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN SR.
SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA

¶21

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.06.2024,

¶22

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

OP(CAT) 108/2017

¶24

¶25

AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.

¶26

OP (CAT) No.108 of 2017

¶27

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2024

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Easwaran S., J.

¶30

The applicants, who are presently working as part time scavengers under “RMS CT Division” under the administrative control of the 1^st respondent was selected and appointed as Part Time Scavenger as per memos dated 31.10.1998 (Annexure-A1)

¶31

and 16.5.2000 (Annexure-A2), respectively. Later, the Department of Posts (Group 'D' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002, Annexure-A3, were issued by the President in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Class-IV Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1970. According to the said Rules, the vacancies shall be filled up by selection-cum-seniority basis in the manner prescribed therein. Annexure-A3 Recruitment Rules were superseded by Annexure-A6, Department of Posts Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010, which came into force with effect from 20.12.2010.

¶32

OP(CAT) 108/2017

¶33

¶34

The applicants contended that there were twelve (12) vacancies for Group-D posts existing immediately before the date of coming into force of Annexure-A6 Recruitment Rules, and that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not initiating steps for regular promotion from Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) like the applicants to Group-D posts against the unfilled vacancies was violative of the provisions contained under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

The respondents, petitioners herein, appeared and filed their reply statement pointing out that as per the Recruitment Rules, though the vacancies were to be filled up by selection-cum-seniority, there were sufficient number of GDS for consideration for appointment as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) and the question of offering the vacancies to part time casual labourers does not arise for consideration. The right of the applicants to claim promotion under the Recruitment Rules was emphatically denied, in view of the fact that they were appointed only as part time casual labourers.

¶36

Considering the contentions raised by the parties, the

¶37

learned Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original

¶38

OP(CAT) 108/2017

¶39

¶40

Application directing the petitioners/respondents to issue orders promoting the applicants 1 & 2 to Group-D post in the order of their seniority against the existing vacancies reserved for casual labourers of RMS TV Division, which existed in 2009 and prior to to that date and reserved for casual labourers of RMS TV Division, as admissible under the roster points which fall under 25% quota set apart for casual labourers under Annexure-A3 Recruitment Rules, 2002. The said order is under challenge in the present original petition.

¶41

We have heard Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondents and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants.

¶42

Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Tribunal erred egregiously in granting the reliefs in the Original Application as prayed for, essentially since the applicants were only recruited as part time casual labourers and they are not eligible to be considered in terms of the Recruitment Rules. He would further place reliance on Annexure-A3 Rules, especially Column No.11, which prescribed the method of appointment,

¶43

OP(CAT) 108/2017

¶44

¶45

wherein it is prescribed that 25% of the vacancies remaining

¶46

unfilled after retirement of employees mentioned at Sl.No.2, shall be filled up by selection-cum-seniority in the following order:

¶47

(a) by casual labourers with temporary status of the recruiting division or unit failing which,

¶48

(b) by full time casual labourers of the recruiting division or unit, failing which,

¶49

¶50

(d) by part time casual labourers of the recruiting division or unit failing which,

¶51

(iii) by direct recruitment.

¶52

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

¶53

the respondents/applicants would contend that going by the Explanation or definition given to the casual labourers, there can

¶54

be no doubt that the applicants have served for more than four hundred and eighty (480) days as casual labourers and as such

¶55

for the purpose of recruitment, they must be deemed to have completed one year service as full time casual labourers. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of Annexures-A3 and A9, there

¶56

can be no doubt that the respondents/applicants are entitled to

¶57

OP(CAT) 108/2017

¶58

¶59

be considered as full time casual labourers, thereby entitling them to claim the benefit of Annexure-A3 Recruitment Rules.

¶60

We have considered the rival submissions raised

¶61

across the bar.

¶62

Going by the averments contained in the Original Application and a perusal of Annexures-A1 and A2 appointment orders issued by the Office of the Sub Record Officer, RMS CT Division, Palakkad -2, it become evidently clear that 1^st and 2^nd applicants were appointed as part time scavenger and part time sweeper, respectively, with effect from the respective dates. The specific stand taken by the petitioners/respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that there were sufficient number of candidates available for consideration for appointment, and therefore, the question of offering the vacancies to the part time casual labourers does not arise at all for consideration. Still further, it is pointed out that under Annexure-A6 Rules, which came into effect on 20.12.2010, 25% of the vacancies are to be filled up by department recruitment from GDS based on selection-cum-seniority and the next 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of competitive examination

¶63

OP(CAT) 108/2017

¶64

¶65

restricted to GDS and 25% by casual labourers appointed on or before 1.9.1993. The relevant extract of Annexure-A6 (column No.11) reads as follows:

¶66

“(i) (a) 25% by appointment of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by; (b) appointment of existing Casual Labourers engaged on or before 1.9.1993 working for eight full hours in a day on the basis of selection cum seniority failing which by;

¶67

(c) appointment of existing part time Casual Labourers, engaged on or before 1.9.1993, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by; (d) direct recruitment as per the scheme circulated by the Department of Posts from time to time;

¶68

(ii) 75% by direct recruitment as per the scheme circulated by the Department of Posts from time to time.”

¶69

Evidently, as per the appointment orders produced

¶70

before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the

¶71

respondents/applicants were appointed after 01.09.1993. On a reading of the order impugned, it becomes evidently clear that a wrong question was posed before the Tribunal which resulted in the impugned order. The Tribunal completely went wrong in addressing the crucial issue as to whether the vacancies were liable to be filled up by considering the appointment of the

¶72

OP(CAT) 108/2017

¶73

¶74

applicants who were temporarily appointed as casual labourers by treating them as full time casual labourers. Even assuming for a moment, the contention of the respondents/applicants was liable to be accepted and they were eligible to be considered for full time casual labourers, but the Tribunal did not address itself on the crucial issue as to whether, the Rules entitled the applicants to claim appointment even though they were appointed after 01.09.1993.

¶75

In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the Central Administrative Tribunal went wrong in allowing the claim in the Original Application. Even though the Recruitment Rules did not apply to the applicants, the Tribunal exceeded in its jurisdiction and granted the relief to the applicants which they were not entitled to claim. Accordingly, we allow the Original Petition, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.85/2014 dated 24.6.2016 and dismiss the Original Application. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶80

jg

¶81

OP(CAT) 108/2017

¶82

¶83

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 108/2017

¶84

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶85

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. PT/RECRUITS/98 DATED 31.10.1998 OF THE SUB RECORD OFFICER, RMS'CT'DIVISION, OTTAPALAM.

¶86

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. PT/RECTT/SRO OTP DATED 16.05.2000 SUB RECORD OFFICER, RMS'CT' DIVISION, OTTAPALAM.

¶87

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (GROUP D POSTS) RECRUITMENT RULES, 2002 AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 23.01.2002.

¶88

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 37-15/2001 SPB-1 DATED 30.01.2002 OF THE ASST. DIRECTOR GENERAL (SPN).

¶89

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. RTI 2005/52/13 DATED 29.10.2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶90

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POST MULTITASKING STAFF RECRUITMENT RULES 2010 AS PER GSR NO.984(E) DATED 12.12.2010 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER NO. 37-33/2009-PB-I DATED 28.01.2011 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶91

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2009 IN WPC NO. 28574 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶92

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2013 IN OA NO. 536/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL.

¶93

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LETTER NO. 65-24/88-SPB.I DATED 17.05.1989.

¶94

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. D4/RTI/SRM DATED 05.11.2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DATED 29.09.2014.

¶95

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00085/2014 DATED 26/1/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶96

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 12/3/2014, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS

¶97

OP(CAT) 108/2017

¶98

¶99

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 7/6/2015 FILED BY THE APPLICANT

¶100

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 3/7/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS

¶101

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED 26/9/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶102

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 30/10/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS

¶103

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/85/2014 DATED 24/6/2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

Union of India v. a.Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. a.Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar. K Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Janatha Tile Works Limited Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Ajayakumar E.K. Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Cochin Devaswom Board Vs *Senior Deputy Director