Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr. vs Ombir on 24 August, 2016
$~10 & 11.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Dated: 24th August, 2016.
+ W.P.(C) 6294/2015 & CM No. 11458/2015
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocate.
versus
KALI CHARAN AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate for
R1,2.
+ W.P.(C) 10630/2015 & CM No.27205/2015
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocate.
versus
OMBIR ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. P.S. Mahendru, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM No. 11458/2015 in W.P.(C) 6294/2015
CM No.27205/2015 in W.P.(C) 10630/2015
1. These applications have been filed by the petitioners seeking stay of
the order dated 3rd November, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in TA No. 57/2012 and
the order dated 13th May, 2015 passed in OA No. 3844/2013 respectively.
Since, the stay applications in both the writ petitions have been heard
together, these are being disposed of by a common order. We are informed
by the learned counsels appearing in both the writ petitions that the facts of
both the case are almost identical. Notice in these matters was issued.
Counsel for the petitioner prays that during pendency of the writ petitions,
the operation of the impugned order be stayed.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents were
employed as part time casual workers i.e. Malis, Chowkidars etc. It is the
case of the petitioners herein that the instructions of the Government of India
contained in its letter No. 2-10/88-PE-I dated 4th February, 1997 and
communication dated 24th February, 1997 received from the Government of
India imposed a complete ban on creation and recruitment of casual
labourers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has failed
to take into consideration that the respondents in both the writ petitions were
only employed as casual labourers and having regard to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v.
Uma Devi & others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the services of the
respondents could not have been regularized and consequently, the Tribunal
has exceeded its jurisdiction in this respect.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is no infirmity
in the orders passed by the Tribunal. The respondents were aspirants for
employment and they had got themselves registered with the employment
exchange vide registration No. 8824/95 and 8825/95 [in W.P.(C) 6294/2015]
and registration No. M/30716/2012 [in W.P.(C)10630/2015] and based on
the requisition sent to the Zonal Employment office by the petitioners herein,
the names of the respondents were nominated for selection.
5. The communication dated 10th January, 1996 of the Zonal
Employment office shows that the name of Kali Charan and Devi Dayal, the
respondents in W.P.(C) 6294/2015, were forwarded by the Employment
Exchange, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi to the petitioners.
6. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the
letter of appointment issued to these respondents which has also been placed
on record would show that charge was handed over by the petitioners to
respondent- Kali Charan. A communication dated 27th March, 1995 would
show that the respondent, Sh. Devi Dayal, was allowed to work as part-time
Mali, purely on temporary and adhoc arrangement w.e.f. 27 th January, 1995
against the vacant post of P/T Mali at Chanakyapuri Post Office, New Delhi.
It is thus contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the decision
rendered in the case of Uma Devi (supra) would not be applicable.
7. Having regard to the documents placed on record, it would show that
the respondents were not employed as casual workers but were employed
after their names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange and against
vacancies. The documents placed on record would also prima facie establish
that the respondents did not make a back door entry but they were duly
registered with the employment exchange, their names were forwarded at the
request of the petitioners and were employed against vacancies which were
available.
8. For these reasons, prima facie, we find no merit in these applications
seeking stay of the order dated 03.11.2014 passed in TA No. 57/2012 and the
order dated 13th May, 2015 passed in OA No. 3844/2013. The respondents
will report for their duty within next two days. However, the order with
regard to payment of back wages is stayed.
9. These applications are disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
W.P.(C) 6294/2015 & W.P.(C) 10630/2015
Rule D.B.
G.S.SISTANI
(JUDGE)
I.S.MEHTA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 24, 2016
j
