Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Umrav Singh Rawat And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1665 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2004, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the Original Application filed by the respondents with a direction to the petitioners to re- engage the respondents and to restore the temporary status already granted to them as per the Scheme of DOPandT and keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh; and other cases as relied upon by the respondents.

2. The present case has a chequered history. The respondents herein earlier filed an Original Application praying for regularisation of their services. The said application was registered as OA No.2543/1999. The said Original Application was considered by the learned Tribunal and by order dated 15th March, 2000, the said Original Application was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to consider the case of the respondents for grant of temporary status and regularization as per the Scheme dated 10th September, 1993. The aforesaid application was disposed of on the basis of the following conclusions which are recorded in paragraph 4:-

4. I have gone through the pleadings very carefully. There appears to be no dispute as regards the engagement of the applicants from 1996 as stated by them for doing the duties of dusting, sweeping and other miscellaneous work in the office. The applicants, therefore, are entitled for regularisation of their cases for temporary status and subsequently, in accordance with the scheme dated 10.9.93 for regularisation. The applicants being causal employees and as they are working since 1996-97, they are entitled for consideration for granting temporary status as per the above scheme.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as CWP No.4229/2000. By order dated 3rd August, 2000, the Division bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as there is no legal infirmity therein. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was registered as SLP No. 11673/2001. The Supreme Court by order dated 23rd August, 2002, allowed the said Special Leave Petition relying upon and after referring to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohan Pal and Ors.; . The following decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on the aforesaid Special Leave Petition:-

Leave granted.

Union of India is in appeal against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal which has been upheld by the High Court in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Union of India. The controversy that centres round this case has already been aswered by a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohan Pal and Ors. . In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court holding that the Scheme of offering temporary status is not an ongoing scheme, the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court cannot be sustained. Those two orders are, accordingly, set aside. The Original Application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal stands dismissed. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.

4. It should be noted from the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court that not only the appeal and the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, the Supreme Court also specifically ordered for dismissal of the Original Application filed by the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents filed a fresh petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was registered as OA No.1707/2003. The said application when placed before the Tribunal was dismissed in liming by the Central Administrative Tribunal holding that the action of the petitioner in withdrawing the grant of temporary status following the decision of the Supreme Court in SLP No.11627/2001 was absolutely correct and could not be interfered with. The respondent was aggrieved by the aforesaid order and accordingly filed a review application which was registered as RA No.241/2003. In the said review application it was noted by the Tribunal that the respondents have sought regularization relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case (supra) and, therefore, the said decision of Mohan Pal's case (supra) shall have no application. The Tribunal issued notice on the said application and thereafter allowed the review application and heard the Original Application once again on merit. Finally, the Tribunal vide order dated 14th July, 2004, allowed the Original Application by the following observations made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment:-

10. The step taken by the respondents in withdrawing the temporary status already granted to the applicants does not appear to be proper and reasonable. A particular status once granted to the employees should not have been withdrawn simply because the Hon'ble Court took a view that the Scheme of the DOPandT as formulated in September, 2003 for regularisation of causal labourers was not an ongoing scheme. The respondents have not kept in view the fact that the said decision of the apex Court did not envisage withdrawal of temporary status already granted to the applicants. There are other conditions also laid down in the said Scheme and which are required to be fulfillled by the applicants before they are considered for being accorded temporary status and regularisation of their services and which the applicants have claimed that they have fulfillled. It has also to be borne in mind that on satisfaction of other conditions necessary for grant of temporary status and regularisation of services as laid down in the DOPandT's scheme of 1993, a number of applicants in different OAs/cases have been allowed the said status and subsequent regularisation of their services. Accordingly, the action taken by the respondents in withdrawing the temporary status already granted to the applicants and not consquentially regularising their services as per the Scheme of the DOPandT and as per other relevant instructions on the subject is not justified.

11. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also that the services of the applicants have been dispensed with by the respondents arbitrarily w.e.f. 28.8.2003 after having allowed them to remain engaged with them for more than six years, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to reengage the applicants and to restore the temporary status already granted to them as per the Scheme of the DOPandT and keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Ors. and Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Ors. and also in Dharwad Distt. PWD literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors. and the other cases as relied upon by the applicants as referred to above. The respondents are further directed to implement the said orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal are under challenge in this writ petition.

5. It is contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the prayer of the respondents for regularization having been answered in negative by the Supreme Court, there could not have been a fresh petition praying for regularization as it amounts to adjudication on the same cause of action. It is also submitted that the Supreme Court having dismissed the Original Application on the ground that temporary status was rightly withdrawn from the respondents, the said aspect could not have become a subject matter of consideration once again before the Tribunal. In support of the said contention, counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the findings recorded in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submits before us that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not based on the decision of Mohan Pal's case (supra) or on the Scheme dated 10th September, 1993 but on the basis of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case (supra) and others.

7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties and also have perused the records.

8. The records referred to above clearly disclose that the respondents approached the Tribunal by filing the Original Application registered as OA No.2543/1999 praying for an order and direction for regularization of their services. The Tribunal allowed the said prayer by issuing a direction for grant of temporary status to the respondents and also for their regularization in terms of the Scheme dated 10th September, 1993, which findings were set aside and quashed by the Supreme Court holding that Mohan Pal's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also held that the Scheme is not an on-going Scheme but a one-time Scheme and, therefore, there could be no order either for grant of temporary status or for regularization of their services. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Original Application filed by the respondents.

9. The respondents, therefore, again filed a fresh petition praying for regularization on the ground that the respondents are entitled to be regularized even otherwise on the basis of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case (supra). The aforesaid plea of the respondents found favor with the Tribunal but while doing so, the Tribunal again considered the Scheme of 10th September, 1993 and, thereafter held that the respondents are entitled to temporary status and regularization.

10. We are unable to accept the aforesaid approach and findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal for more than one reason. The earlier petition which was filed by the respondents was also for regularization of their services which was dismissed by the order of the Supreme Court. Therefore, although the case of Piara Singh's case (supra) may not have been referred to by the Supreme Court but the relief claimed was the same as the question that was involved was in respect of regularization of their services. The said petition having been dismissed by the Tribunal, there could not have been a second petition on the same cause of action. Besides, the Supreme Court having held in the case of Mohan Pal's case (supra) that the Scheme of 10th September, 1993, was not an on- going Scheme but a one-time Scheme and the respondents having been appointed much after the date of enforcement of the said Scheme, they were not entitled to the benefit of the said Scheme. Paragraph 4 of the said Scheme clearly takes the case of the respondents out of the purview of the said Scheme. The Supreme Court, therefore, categorically held that Mohan Pal's case (supra) was not applicable to the case of the respondents and, therefore, they were not entitled to any declaration of being vested with the temporary status as also to the declaration that they were entitled to regularization.

11. Therefore, we find no merit in this petition. The petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and quashed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.