Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Gopal Dass on 29 April, 2013
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: April 29, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 7460/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by:Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
GOPAL DASS ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated
December 05, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench in OA No.1301/2011 whereby the Tribunal disposed
of the OA directing the petitioners herein to examine and determine
the reasons for non-regularization of the respondent and for that
purpose if the recruitment rules are needed to be framed the same be
expedited in a time-frame. Further, if on account any ban, the
petitioners shall consider taking up of the case of the respondent and
other similarly placed casual labourers, with temporary status
working with them for regularization by having one time relaxation
on the lines on which such relaxation has earlier been granted in the
case of similarly placed persons.
W P (C) 7460/2012 1 of 3
2. Union of India has filed the aforesaid writ petition. The
respondent has not challenged the impugned order. The claim of the
respondent before the Tribunal, inter alia, was that he be considered
for regularization in terms of the rules and regulations and the
memorandum dated December 11, 2009 be also implemented for
regularization as Farash. The Tribunal did not grant those reliefs to
the respondent. It is noted from the record that the OM dated
December 11, 2009 was issued by the DOP&T on a reference made
by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Tribunal has held that the said
OM is a case specific relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs and
has no general application. We agree with such an observation of the
Tribunal. In so far as the plea of the respondent for regularization of
his services as Farash is concerned the Tribunal notes that Farash and
Safaiwala has been merged as multi-tasking staff and it has been
decided to ban the fresh recruitment and as such no regularization has
been made.
3. It is noted that the respondent was granted temporary status in
terms of the Temporary Status Scheme issued by the DOPT on
10.09.1993. Certain benefits flow to a casual labourer who has been
granted temporary status. The scheme also contemplates
regularization subject to vacancies. It is surprising that despite being
granted temporary status and even after lapse of so many years, the
respondent has not been regularized. It is on account of these aspects
the Tribunal had made observation in para 5 the impugned order
which has been reflected above. We do not see anything wrong with
the observations made by the Tribunal in para 5. The respondent is
W P (C) 7460/2012 2 of 3
entitled to regularization in terms of the scheme dated September 10,
1993. Regrettably under the garb of ban on the recruitment the
benefit of September 10, 1993 has been denied to the respondent,
which we feel is arbitrary. We do not want to say anything further on
the same. Suffice would it be to say that we do not find anything
wrong in the directions given by the Tribunal in para 5 of the
impugned order.
4. The writ petition is dismissed.
5. No costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2013
mm
W P (C) 7460/2012 3 of 3
