Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Rajender Singh And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 826 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.12.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 244 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the Original application filed by the respondents herein for grant of temporary status and regularization purported to be in terms of a scheme dated 20.06.1997 was allowed.

2. According to the petitioner, Khalasis are recruited as Seasonal employees during the floor season. Such appointment would vary from season to season depending upon the intensity of the monsoon. Admittedly, such candidates are appointed without intimating the vacancy position to the Employment Exchange under the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and the candidates being sponsored by it.

3. The respondents formulated a scheme, which came into force on 01.06.1997, allegedly pursuant to or on the basis of a direction issued in this behalf by the Central Administrative Tribunals, Calcutta and Guwahati Benches.

4. Para 3 of the said scheme is as under:-

"3. This scheme is applicable to the seasonal khalasis in employment on the work-charged establishment of the Central Water Commission on the date of commencement of the scheme and who continue to be so employed and have rendered a minimum of 120 days continuous service or such persons who were engaged any time during the preceding one year and have rendered a minimum of 120 days continuous service in that year."

5.The construction of the aforementioned provision falls for consideration in this writ petition.

6. The learned Tribunal held that from the certificates issued in favor of the petitioners, it would appear that they in the years 1981, 1986, 1989 and 1990 worked for more than 120 days in a year and as it is not stipulated therein that they must work for 120 days only in the year 1996, the original applicants, i.e., the respondents herein were entitled to grant of temporary status. Hence this writ petition.

7. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that upon true and correct interpretation of the said scheme, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the concerned employees for the purpose of grant of temporary status must work for 120 days continuously.

8. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment.

9. It is not in dispute that the respondents were unskilled workers. In the aforesaid scheme, Seasonal Khalasis have been defined in the following terms:-

"4. Definition: Seasonal Khalasis are unskilled persons employed year to year to meet the requirements during the monsoon season for 24 hours' observation of river gauges for the purposes of flood forecasting, etc. Generally they are employed during the months from June/July to September/October when the monsoon is very active. They are paid at the minimum in the scale of pay of the post of Khalasis in work-charged establishment."

10. Clause 3 of the said scheme is in three parts. In terms of the said scheme, the Seasonal Khalasis must be in employment on the work-charged establishment of the Central Water Commission on the date of commencement thereof. They must continue to be so employed and have rendered minimum 120 days continuous service. However, also those persons who were engaged any time during the preceding year and have rendered minimum 120 days continuous service in that year were also entitled to the benefit there under.

11. Employment of the Seasonal Khalasis on the date of coming into force of the said scheme, i.e., 01.06.1997 and rendition of 120 days continuous service is sine qua non for obtaining the benefit of the said scheme. It is only the second part, which requires an interpretation.

Under the scheme those who are employed on the commencement thereof must have rendered a minimum period of 120 days of continuous service, i.e., from 01.06.1997 and only in that event they are entitled to temporary status. The expression 'that' used in the scheme is of some significance. They were also under the said scheme in the alternative was required to have rendered a continuous minimum service of 120 days in the year preceding 01.06.1997.

12. Thus, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself in issuing the impugned directions.

13. It is also not in dispute that regularization or grant of temporary status cannot be claimed automatically. Regularization or grant of temporary status can be conferred only by reason of a statute or statutory rules and/or any executive instructions issued in terms of Article 77 of the Constitution of India.

14. It is no longer res integra that a cut-off date can be fixed in terms of such scheme. It is also not in dispute that conditions therefore can also be laid down.

15. The scheme was communicated to all concerned on 20.06.1997.

16. The forwarding letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources to the Chairman, Central Water Commission also clearly suggests that the said scheme would only be applicable to those, who are presently employed and had rendered minimum 120 days continuous service in the Central Water Commission or those who were engaged any time during the preceding one year and have rendered 120 days continuous service in that year. The Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, committed an error of law by wrongly interpreting the said scheme.

17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the writ petition is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.