Kishan Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 2323 Del

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. Petitioner impugns the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 1236/2005 dated 20th February, 2006 dismissing the Original Application and the order dated 4th May, 2006 passed in Review Application No. 71/2006 and M.A. No. 742/2006 in O.A. No. 1236/2005 dismissing the Review Application filed by him before the Tribunal. Petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking the quashing of circular dated 30th September, 2004 whereby he claimed that he was terminated from services by the respondent. He also sought reinstatement as Group 'D' Contingency paid employee of the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DGRI) with effect from 1.10.2004 and also sought a direction that he should be continued in service till his services are regularized. He further sought the creation of a vacancy so that he could be accommodated, and claimed wages for August, 2004 and from 12th September, 2004 to 30th September, 2004.

2. Petitioner claims that he was engaged on contract basis with effect from 10th August, 1999 to 30th September, 2004. He claims that he completed more than 240 days in each year yet his services were terminated vide circular dated 1st October, 2004 without giving him any show cause notice, much less an enquiry. He states that his termination was punitive and as it was not preceded by an enquiry, it ought to be quashed. Petitioner seeks regularization under a scheme dated 7.6.1988 which he claims is reiterated in O.M. dated 10th September, 1993. He also claimed that he was not working on contract basis and he was a direct employee of the respondent/DGRI.

3. Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had been engaged on contract basis which had expired on 16th September, 2004 and was not renewed thereafter. The respondent is an Intelligence gathering Organization and to prevent the unauthorized presence of the petitioner, who continued to be present in the office premises of the respondent despite the expiry of his contractual employment, the respondent issued the circular dated 30th September, 2004. The respondent claimed that all contractual employment had been directed to be discontinued by the Government as per instructions contained in circular F. No. C-18013/75/2003-AD.III B dated 10th March, 2004. The respondent stated that they were not employing any contractor workers and on need basis labour was being outsourced. The respondent also claimed that there was complete ban of engagement of casual/daily wagers as per communication dated 17.9.1991 and that Board's letter dated 30th March, 1992 only permits the engagement of persons on contract basis for dusting, sweeping of office premises and for the other petty works. The engagement of the petitioner on contract basis was only for the purpose of cleaning of office premises and other petty jobs. No show cause notice was required to be given or regular enquiry was required to be conducted for a contract worker like the petitioner. The respondents denied that the petitioner was employed as a driver. The log entries relied upon by the petitioner appeared to have been made by him while he was merely present in the vehicle for some other work which may have been allotted to him by the accompanying persons. The respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohan Pal and Ors. .

4. The Tribunal considered the submissions of the petitioner and dismissed his application. The Tribunal notes that the petitioner had been engaged on contract basis form 1999 onwards which he never challenged and could not be permitted to challenge the same after his engagement had come to an end. His last engagement was from 6.9.2004 to 12.9.2004, which came to an end by efflux of time. It was not renewed, and could not be reinstated by a Court. What he claims to be a termination order was, in fact, a circular issued to prevent him from entering the office premises of the respondent which, as aforesaid, is engaged in undertaking sensitive intelligence operations. The concept of termination could not be attracted to the case of the petitioner and he has no right to insist on being regularly employed. The Tribunal notices the letter dated 10th March, 2004 issued by the Ministry of Finance banning engagement of daily wagers and casual labour. The Tribunal took note of the scheme dated 7th June, 1988. This was followed by a scheme of 10.9.1993 for conferring temporary status and regularisation. These were one time measures and applied to those who were already working on casual basis on the date of the scheme. The petitioner could not claim benefit of these schemes since he was engaged on contract basis for the first time in May, 1999. The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Mohan Pal's case(supra) in this regard. The schemes could not be applied to all casual labours as and when they complete one year of continuous service. The Tribunal also relied upon the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Gagan Kumar (2005)3 AISLJ SC 7 and AIR 2005 SCW 5922 to hold that the benefit of the concerned scheme was available only to those who fulfilll the criteria on the date of the scheme and that such schemes were not on-going schemes of which benefit could be claimed by subsequent appointees.

5. Before us, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that his was not a case of contractual employment, the elements of offer and acceptance were lacking, and that with the termination of his engagement on 13th September, 2004, he is being deprived of his livelihood. He further states that he was engaged as and performed the duty of a driver. While contradicting these submissions, Mr. H.K. Gangwani, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the respondent was not engaging anyone on contractual basis any more. He also refuted the contention of the petitioner that Safaiwalas were being retained on contractual basis and he states that none has been retained as a safaiwala on contractual basis.

6. The findings of the Tribunal with regard to the nature of employment of the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner that he served as a driver and not as a Safaiwala are questions of fact which dispute cannot be gone into by us in these proceedings. In view of the stand taken by the respondent that they are not engaging anyone on contractual basis, the petitioner can have no grievance to claim that he was in any way 'Senior' to any other contractual employee, or that other "juniors" have been retained, while his services have not been confirmed on contract basis. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Pals Case (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for regularization under the schemes which were one time measures and implemented much before his initial engagement in 1999.

7. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal and accordingly we dismiss the present petition leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.