This court dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent-authorities challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal order directing them to confer temporary status to applicants if found eligible. The court found no illegality in the Tribunal direction.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 38492 of 2015
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)
This writ petition is filed against the orders dated 03.11.2014 in O.A.No.1404 of 2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are the respondents and the respondents herein are the applicants in the said OA before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The applicants are part-time casual labourers in the Railway Mail Service, Hyderabad Sorting Division for the past 25 years continuously without any break. They approached the Tribunal by way of filing the aforesaid O.A stating that the Postal Directorate vide its orders dated 16.09.1992, 28.04.1997 and 30.04.1998 has instructed all the Post Master Generals of the States to provide eight hours duty to all the staff and also to convert them into full time casual labourers. And the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. also directed to convert part-time casual labourers into full time casual labourers, and the Department has not converted them into full time casual labourers. The applicants relied on the decision rendered in OA No.398 of 1998 and pleaded that they also stand on a similar footing as that of the applicants in OA No.398 of 1998 and hence the applicants are entitled for the same relief granted to the applicants in OA No.398 of 1998.
The respondents filed their counter resisting the application on
the ground that the duration spent in casual work is no ground for seeking permanent status in employment. The respondents relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2004(6) SCC 1) wherein the apex Court held that regularization based on long years of casual work cannot be ordered and such entry into public service is not permitted.
The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, disposed of the OA
observing as follows:
“In view of the above position, after following the judgment OA No.398/1998 and OA No.1160 of 2012 dated 06.06.2014, we dispose of this O.A. with a direction to the respondents to confer temporary status to the applicants, if they are similarly situated and found eligible in accordance with the orders passed in the above O.As. Respondents shall conclude the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Calling in question the legality of the orders passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-authorities are before this Court with this writ petition.
3. Heard.
4. A perusal of the orders of the Tribunal would show that the applicants who are part time casual labourers in Railway Mail Service, Hyderabad Sorting Division sought conferment of full time labourers status based on the orders passed by the Tribunal in OA No.398 of 1998 and OA No.1160 of 2012. The respondent-authorities have issued certain circulars containing instructions for considering the cases of part time casual labourers for the purpose of conferment of temporary status on them. It was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that there were similar orders passed by the Tribunal and also by this Court as well as the apex Court. Basing on the said orders, the applicants made a claim before the Tribunal that they are eligible for conferment of full time labourers status. The Tribunal, after considering the case of
the applicants, directed the respondent-authorities to confer temporary status to the applicants, if they are similarly situated and found eligible in accordance with law. The Tribunal has also directed the respondentauthorities to conclude the entire exercise within three months from the date of the order.
5. Hence, the Tribunal has only directed the respondentauthorities to examine whether the applicants are similarly situated persons as per the claim made by them and if the applicants are found eligible for conferment of temporary status, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months. When that is the case, the respondent-authorities, for the reasons best known to them, without passing appropriate orders on the claim made by the applicants, have approached this Court challenging the orders of the Tribunal. We find no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
04th December, 2015
ksm
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 38492 of 2015
04th December, 2015
ksm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there exists any illegality or infirmity in the Tribunal directions to confer temporary status to casual labourers after assessing eligibility.
Whether respondent-authorities can challenge Tribunal orders without first passing appropriate orders on the applicants claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Respondent-authorities
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench
G. CHANDRAIAH
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
