Union Of India vs Tulsibhai Kantibhai Dantani

                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/19194/2023                             ORDER DATED: 06/11/2023

                                                                                  undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19194 of 2023

==========================================================
                              UNION OF INDIA
                                   Versus
                        TULSIBHAI KANTIBHAI DANTANI

==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
       MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                              Date : 06/11/2023

                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr.Harsheel Shukla for the petitioner.

2. The challenge in this Special Civil Application is directed against judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No.482 of 2015, whereby the tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant-respondent herein for regularization of the services of the applicant as per the Rules, against the vacancy and on the conditions similar to the previsions specified in the order of the Controller of Defence Accounts.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19194/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2023 undefined 2.1 The prayer before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Application No.482 of 2015 filed by the applicant was to set aside the decision of the authority rejecting the representation dated 5.11.2015, whereby the request of the applicant for regularization of the services was rejected. Further prayer was made to direct the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the applicant as Safaiwala.

3. While directing the consideration of the case of the applicant for regularization, the Central Administrative Tribunal took into account certain factual aspects. The employee was appointed as Casual Labourer in September, 2004. His services were terminated by order dated 2.5.2008. It appears that at the same time, the authorities intended to replace the Casual Labourer- the applicant with another ad-hoc employee. Such conduct was not approved by the Tribunal. At that time, Original Application No.162 of 2008 was filed by the applicant and the termination of the applicant was set aside by order dated 19.12.2008. Thereafter the petitioner has been in service as Safai kamdaar.

4. The Tribunal considered the rival case and the material before it to arrive at the following findings, extracting from para 6 of the impugned order, "Here, the applicant had been continuing on the basis of the Tribunal's order in OA No.162/2008. In fact in that order, this Tribunal had also imposed cost on respondents. The main stay at that time was that one Casual Labour could not be replaced by another. No Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 08 20:40:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19194/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2023 undefined record has been brought to suggest that a regularly recruited incumbent was recommended to be appointed against the lone vacancy. And the vacancy continued to exists all this while."

4.1 It was further observed, "We also see that as one time measure, the Principal CDA & some other authorities did regularize the services of Casual Labourers. In fact the PCDA's order dated 01.12.2011 (Annexure A/6) shows regularization of an 8 th pass Casual Labour in 1S scale of 4440- 7440+GP 1300/- subject to the conditions that he undergoes training for a year whereafter he could be considered for PB-1 + GP 1800/- scale of pay. Records and documents before us do not explain why this dispensation was not extended to the applicant. In fact not regularizing his service is arbitrary, discriminatory and erroneous, in view of PDCA's order dated 01.12.2011 (Annexure A/6)."

5. Thus, the findings of fact came to be recorded by the Tribunal that during the entire period when the applicant- respondent is kept in service, vacancy was available. The vacancy continued to exists all the while, it was found. It was further recorded that as one time measure, other Casual Labourers were regularized by the other authorities who were similarly situated.

5.1 The court finds that continuing the applicant as Casual Labourer for more than two decades and not regularizing his services despite the available vacancies, amounts to unfair labour practice adopted by the petitioners.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19194/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2023 undefined

6. In overall view, no error could be booked in the order of the Tribunal in issuing direction for consideration of the case of the applicant- respondent herein for regularizing his services as per the Rules and conditions as specified against the vacancy.

7. The challenge stands meritless. The petition is dismissed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) Manshi Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 08 20:40:21 IST 2023