The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing a order deleting a petitioner's post of Caretaker. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the post should be retained based on the appeal to the scope of duties and floor area.
The writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 4585 of 2009
“7. It is not disputed before this Tribunal that the applicant while working as Duftary in the Circle Office, appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee and after undergoing a process of selection he was appointed as Catetaker in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500/which is equal to that of present pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. That apart, Annexure-A/1, appointment order issued to the applicant has been approved by the Department and the probation of the applicant has already been over and he is continuing as Caretaker from 1991 onwards. It is also to be noted that on the recommendation made by the 5th Pay Commission, it is suggested that a revised norms for Caretaker be initiated and the post of Caretakers as Ex-Cadre has been merged with the General Ministerial Cadre of PACO carrying the scale of Rs.4000-100-6000/-. It means, on the commencement of the 5th Pay Commission the prevalent system, the post of Caretaker being an ex-care one, has carried a halt in all Govt. Departments and there shall not be any separate cadre of caretaker in the Government Department. However, this question had not been considered by the Department when the applicant was appointed in a separate cadre of caretaker and not as Excadre, but he was appointed in the regular cadre and had been assigned a pay scale. With regard to the argument of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent that as the duty of the caretaker is
-2-
extended to look after the entire property of the Government, including approach roads, lawns etc which comes to an area more than 7000 sq. meters, the applicant is not entitled to hold the post as per the circular of 1999. It is to be noted that even applying the principles enunciated by the Finance Department for entrusting the care-taking work or appointing/performing the duty of a caretaker, the sole criterion is the floor are of the Government building. If so, on the basis of the averments and the evidence now adduced by the Official Respondents, it is clear that the floor area of the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar is only 4219 sq. Meter. Therefore, the intention of entrusting or performing the work of caretaker even as per the letter of Govt. of India, Finance Department of 2000 shall depend on the floor area of Government building. The duty of the Caretaker may be extendable to all area of the land owned by the Government but the criterion of appointment or entrustment of duties of Caretaker shall depend only on the floor area available to the building and not on the basis of the total land owned by the Department.
-3-
otherwise, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
No order as to costs.
.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice
…………………..……… ( K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
SKJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue holding the post of Caretaker in view of the floor area of the building under the Finance Department guidelines.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing the government's decision to delete the petitioner's post.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioner
Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench
K.S. Jhaveri
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
