Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Dec 2014CWP/26292/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed two writ petitions challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's rejection of a claim for temporary status under a 1993 Scheme. The Court upheld the Tribunal, noting the Scheme was restricted to employees engaged before September 1, 1993, and the petitioners joined later. However, the Court clarified that the order does not preclude the government from formulating future s

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of dismissing the petitioners' claims for temporary status.

Anil Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.26292 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 22, 2014

Anil Kumar

.....Petitioner

versus

Union of India and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Civil Writ Petition No.26293 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 22, 2014

Ranjit

.....Petitioner

versus

Union of India and others

¶13

.....Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶15

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.

¶16

Present: Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocate, for

¶17

Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶18

-.-

¶19

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶20

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶21

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶22

¶23

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶24

This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.26292 and 26293 of 2014 as besides same question of law and facts, a common order passed by the Tribunal is being impugned in both the cases.

¶25

For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.26292 of 2014.

¶26

The petitioner joined the Hospitality Department of U.T. Administration in its Rest House as a Utility Worker on 18.12.1998. His services were allegedly terminated in the year 2005 but he was reinstated on the same terms and conditions on 16.01.2006.

¶27

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.24 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

[2]

¶29

CWP No.26292 & 26293 of 2014

¶30

Having served the respondent-authorities for a long period, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, for issuance of a direction to confer him 'temporary status' and pay regular pay and allowances. The above-stated relief was sought under the 'Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status) Regularization Scheme formulated by Government of India in the year 1993 (hereinafter referred to as '1993 Scheme').

¶31

The Tribunal has vide impugned order dated 24.07.2014 turned down the petitioner's claim after observing that the 1993 Scheme for conferring 'temporary status' to the casual employees was a one-time concession and is not an ongoing Scheme. The Tribunal referred to the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another versus Mohan Pal (SLP (Civil) No.2224 of 2000, where it was directed that temporary status shall be conferred only on those casual labourers who came to be engaged on or before 01.09.1993.

¶32

The petitioner was admittedly engaged in the year 1998. Since the Scheme formulated by Government of India was a one-time concession and has not been applied to the casual labourers engaged after 01.09.1993, we do not find any error of law or facts committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The petitioner thus cannot be granted temporary status under the above-stated Scheme.

¶33

However, the aforesaid order would not preclude the respondent-authorities to formulate a Scheme consistent with the dictum in State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, for there might be several daily wage/casual labourers like the petitioner(s), who by now

¶34

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.24 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

CWP No.26292 & 26293 of 2014 [3]

¶36

worked for more than 10 years or so. If such a Scheme has already been formulated by Union of India or U.T. Administration or as and when it is formulated in future, the petitioner(s) would be entitled to seek benefits thereof subject to the eligibility conditions as may be incorporated in such Scheme.

¶37

The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Dasti.

¶38

December 22, 2014 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶39

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.24 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Anil Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

UOI & Ors. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.

Kishana and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Des Raj Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gopi Kishan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Brahmanand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ranjit Vs Union of India and Ors.