Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/17 vs Nipu Hazarika And 21 Ors on 10 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/17
GAHC010265972017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6669/2017
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD and ANR.
REP. BY CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI-1.
2: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
TELECOM, ASSAM CIRCLE
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. PANBAZAR
GUWHTI - 781001
VERSUS
NIPU HAZARIKA and 21 ORS.
S/O LT. JONARAM HAZARIKA VILL- NAMONI GAYAN GAON P.O.
DHEKORGORAH, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN - 785015.
2:POBITRA CHUTIA
S/O SRI PADMA CHUTIA VILL- BANMUKH CHUTIA GAON DIST.
SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN - 785690.
3:ATUL GOGOI
S/O SRI JOGESHWAR GOGOI VILL- KUKURA CHOWA
P.O. TENGA PUKHURI DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM PIN - 785686.
4:SRI JITUL NEOG
S/O LT. RAMNATH NEOG VILL- ARALTALI
P.O. PELENGI DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM, PIN - 785672.
5:MAFIZUR RAHMAN
S/O MD. MOHIBUL RAHMAN VILL and P.O. ARJUNGURI DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM PIN - 785697
6:DURGESHWAR KHANIKAR
S/OLT. GUTIRAM KHANIKAR VILL- KHANIKAR GAON P.O. GARGAON
Page No.# 2/17
DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN - 785685.
7:MAHENDRA BORAH
S/O SRI SIBA NATH BORAH VILL- BAHUWA BARI P.O. BAN RAJABARI
DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM PIN - 785671.
8:SUNABER ALI
S/O ABDUL RAHMAN VILL- AIDEOBARI BAGICHA GAON P.O. SONARI
DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM PIN - 785690
9:BIPIN BORAH
S/O KANAK BORAH VILL- BOHUABARI
P.O. BAM RAJABARI DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM PIN - 785671.
10:RATI KANTA GOGOI
S/O THUNIKA GOGOI VILL- BANMUKH
DHUPABARIA P.O. P.AN BECHA
DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN - 785663.
11:ANIL CHANGMAI
S/O LT. KANAK CHANGMAI VILL- BETBARI TAMULI BAZAAR
P.O. BETBARI, DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM, PIN - 785640.
12:MONI KANTA CHUTIA
S/O LILADHAR CHUTIA VILL- BANMUKH
CHUTIA GAON, DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM PIN - 785690
13:PRAMOD GOGOI
S/O BUDAI GOGOI VILL- KATHPAR
P.O. BANMUKH DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM, PIN - 785663.
14:BHABEN GOGOI
S/O SADANANDA GOGOI VILL- NARAGAON
P.O. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN - 785622.
15:ALAUDDIN AHMED
S/O LT. CHUMBER ALI AHMED VILL - NA ALI
P.O. and DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM
PIN - 785640
16:JITU HAZARIKA
S/OLT. JONARAM HAZARIKA VILL- NAMONI GAYAN GAON P.O. DHEKOR
GORAH DIST. JORHAT
Page No.# 3/17
ASSAM, PIN - 785015.
17:MRIDUL LAHON
S/O LT. LOKNATH LAHON VILL- SIMLUGURI LAHON GON P.O.
SIMULGURI, DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM,M PIN - 785686.
18:DIPEN HAZARIKA
S/O LT. DHANIRAM HAZARIKA VILL- KHUTIA POTA GAON
P.O. NAHOTIA DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM PIN - 785108.
19:MAKAN GOGOI
S/O HALURAM GOGOI VILL- LUJANIA GAON P.O. GASPURIA MARIANI
DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN - 785008.
20:BINOY GOGOI
S/O LOKRSWAR GOGOI VILL- MARONGIAL
GAON P.O. NAKACHARI MARIANI
DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM PIN - 785635.
21:DHARANI GOGOI
S/O LT. TILAK GOGOI VILL- LAGUABARI
P.O. RAJMAI DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM PIN - 785672
22:NIRUPAMA BURAGOHAIN
SBS, O/O GMTD, BSNL, JORHAT, PIN - 785001
Advocate for the Petitioners : MR.R THADANI, MR. B. PATHAK
Advocate for the Respondents : MR H K DAS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
JUDGMENT
Date : 10.08.2022
(R.M. Chhaya, CJ.)
By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment dated 29.09.2015
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal'), Guwahati Bench, in Original Application No. 261/2013.
Page No.# 4/17
2. The following facts can be culled out from the record of the petition:
(i) That the petitioners are a former part of the Department of Tele
Communications, Government of India. The petitioner no. 1, namely, Bharat Sanchal
Nigam Limited (BSNL), is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956
since 15.09.2000 and is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The basic
facts arising in this petition relates back to the proceedings of WP(C) 302/1986 and
WP(C) 273/1986, filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court by 'Bharatia Dak Tar Mazdoor
Manch' for the cause of Daily Rated Casual Labourers employed under the Posts &
Telegraph Department existing then. Vide a Circular dated 30.03.1985, issued by the
Director General, Posts & Telegraphs, there was already a ban on fresh employment of
casual labourers by Telecom Circles/Districts, which came into effect from 30.03.1985.
The Hon'ble Apex Court by judgment dated 27.10.1987, reported in Daily Rated
Casual Labour Employed Under P & T Department vs. Union of India and Others,
reported in (1988) 1 SCC 122, directed the Union of India and others, who were party
to the said petitions, to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as
possible the casual labourers who had been continuously working for more than one
year in the Posts and Telegraph Department. Thus, a direction was issued for
regularization of only such casual labourers who had been continuously working for
more than one year on the date of the judgment and order of the Apex Court. As per
the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Union of India and the Posts and
Telegraph Department formulated a scheme for the same. The said scheme was
named as the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization)
Scheme of Department of Telecommunications, 1989" (hereinafter referred to as
"1989 Scheme"), which was introduced vide a Circular No. 269-10/89-STN dated
07.11.1989. The said scheme was prepared to cover only those class of casual
labourers who were already classified by laying down conditions to be read with the
provisions of the scheme and Circular dated 30.03.1985. The Circular dated
07.11.1989 also provided that the scheme was a one-time scheme. The said scheme
Page No.# 5/17
inter alia further provided that fresh recruitment and employment of casual labourer
for any type of work in Telecom Circles/Districts should be stopped after 30.03.1985
and normally no casual labourer engaged after 30.03.1985 would be available for
consideration for conferring temporary status. It also provided that in the unlikely
event of there being any cases of casual labourers engaged after 30.03.1985 requiring
consideration for conferment of temporary status, the same should be referred to the
Telecom Commission with relevant particulars regarding the action taken against the
officers under whose authorization the irregular engagement/non-retrenchment was
resorted to. Thus, the scheme normally provided that no casual labourer who has
been recruited after 30.03.1985 should be granted temporary status without specific
approval from the office of the Telecom Commission. The said scheme came into force
from 01.10.1989 onwards and the same was made applicable to the casual labourers
employed by the Department of Telecommunications. The said scheme also provided
various provisions relating to temporary status, entitlement, termination of service etc.
(ii) The record indicates that the Ministry of Telecommunications, vide a letter
No. 269-4/93-STN dated 25.06.1993, issued a further Circular providing for
conferment of temporary status under the scheme to a particular group of casual
labourers engaged in Project Circles and Railway Electrification Circles thereby
extending the scope of the scheme to those casual labourers engaged after
31.03.1985 to 22.06.1988 as special case on the condition of their being still
continuing for such works in the specified areas and who were not absent for the last
more than 365 days counting from the date of issue of the letter dated 25.06.1993.
Another Circular came to be issued by the Department on 17.12.1993 for the casual
labourers working in Railway Electrification project. The record further indicates that
the Government of India in Tele Communication Department issued another Office
Memorandum vide No. 269-4/93-STN-II(PT) dated 12.02.1999. By the said Office
Memorandum the Department of Tele Communication withdrew the power to engage
casual labourer from the officers of Department of Tele Communication putting
Page No.# 6/17
emphasis on the issue that the Department has already imposed a ban on
recruitment/engagement of casual labourer vide letter dated 22.06.1988. The said
Office Memorandum also inter alia emphasized that as per the scheme there is no
provision for any fresh engagement of such casual loabourers after the said date, i.e.
22.06.1988. Thus, after such curtailment of power and the prohibition, any
engagement of casual labourers and any certificate issued to that extent will be null
and void and the Department of Tele Communication would not be bound by any such
illegal action of their officers for engagement of casual labourer after 22.06.1988.
(iii) It is also a matter of record that the Posts & Telegraph Manual Vol. X came
to be amended and paragraph 193 and also paragraphs 150 to 177 of the Financial
Handbook Vol. III (Part 1, Chapter 6) came to be deleted with regard to payment of
casual labourers and the said Office Memorandum dated 12.02.1999 also clarified that
the casual labourers who have already been conferred with temporary status and have
completed ten years of service were to be regularized. It appears from the record that
in order to avoid any anomaly, The Government of India, Department of Tele
Communication, vide Circular No. 269-13/99-STN.II dated 01.09.1999, issued further
clarification and clarified that the date for conferment of temporary status to such
class of casual labourers would be effective from 01.09.1999, i.e. the date of issue of
the Circular dated 01.09.1999 and in case of regularization of temporary status
Mazdoors eligible as on 31.03.1997 would be 01.04.1997.
(iv) Again, by a letter dated 29.09.2000, the Department of Telecom Services,
Government of India, authorized all the Chief General Managers of the BSNL to
regularize eligible casual labourers up to 01.08.1998 as per Circular dated 12.02.1999
and to disengage those ineligible labourers forthwith. As stated above, the BSNL came
into existence with effect from 15.09.2000 and pursuant to the order passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, in Original Application
No. 297/2001, the BSNL decided to scrutinize the engagement particulars of all the
casual labourers engaged by the erstwhile Department of Tele Communication.
Page No.# 7/17
Accordingly, the cases of the present respondents were also scrutinized by the
Verification Committee constituted for that purpose and the said committee held that
the present respondents could not satisfy the eligibility criteria under the scheme and,
as a result, their cases were not considered favourably and by passing a speaking
order dated 26.12.2002, the respondents were also informed about the same. It is
also a matter of record that the present respondents were not applicants in O.A.
297/2001. However, the respondents, thereafter, after a time lapse of about ten years
approached the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench, by filing O.A. 239/2012 without
mentioning about the order dated 26.12.2002. In the proceedings of the said O.A.
239/2012, the respondents herein made statements without any basis that they were
still continuing to work as casual labourers under the BSNL. Initially, by an order dated
13.08.2012, status quo was granted in O.A. 239/2012. Although the services of the
present respondents had already been disengaged, as a matter of compliance of the
order of the CAT dated 13.08.2012, the BSNL considered the comprehensive
representations submitted by the present respondents and, by a speaking order dated
28.01.2013, their representations came to be considered and rejected. Thereafter, the
respondents again approached the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench, through Original
Application No. 261/2013 challenging the order dated 28.01.2013 passed by the BSNL
on their comprehensive representations. The BSNL contested the said Original
Application and contended inter alia that the respondents were disengaged way back
in 1998. It was also contended that the cause of action arose on different dates as
they had been disengaged on different dates from 01.01.1998 to 13.06.1998, which
had been communicated to them by a speaking order dated 26.12.2002. It was also
contended that the claim of the respondents was clearly barred by limitation under
section 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is also alleged that the
respondents have suppressed the fact that they had earlier approached the Tribunal
by filing O.A. 239/2012. Ultimately, the said proceedings (O.A. 261/2013) culminated
into the final order dated 29.05.2015, which is impugned in the present writ petition
Page No.# 8/17
on various grounds.
3. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition and the petitioners have
also filed their rejoinder denying the contentions raised by the respondents in their
affidavit-in-opposition.
4. Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. H. K. Das,
learnd counsel appearing for all the respondents.
5. We have also perused the record of the petition including the affidavit-in-
opposition and the affidavit-in-reply. We have also perused the impugned judgment
and order.
6. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court through the
impugned order and has contended that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable
to be quashed as the respondents have suppressed material fact and also the fact that
they had not challenged the speaking order dated 26.12.2002, by which their claim for
conferment of temporary status had been rejected by the BSNL authority. Mr. Pathak
has further contended that the learned Tribunal has believed the statements made by
the respondents, which are false to the effect that they are continuing in service,
whereas they have shown on their own that they stood disengaged in the year 1998,
which is clear from the orders dated 26.12.2002 and 28.01.2013 passed by the
petitioner authority.
7. Mr. Pathak has contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the
provisions of the scheme and has also ignored the fact that the scheme of 1989 is not
an ongoing one but was introduced as a one-time measure. It is also contended by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said scheme was in consonance with
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager,
Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs. Laxmi Devi & Ors. , reported in (2009) 7 SCC 205. Mr.
Pathak further contends that as such no reasoning is given by the Tribunal for giving
direction to the present petitioners (original respondents) to confer temporary status
Page No.# 9/17
to the present respondents (original applicants). It is also contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others ,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, which was relied upon by the petitioners before the
Tribunal, no such status can be conferred upon the respondents de hors the scheme.
8. Mr. Pathak also contended that the Tribunal has also not thoroughly examined
the aspect whether the respondents fulfill the eligibility criteria for applicability of the
scheme or not and has directly passed an order for considering the case of the
respondents for conferment of temporary status. On the aforesaid grounds, it is
contended by Mr. Pathak that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Per contra, Mr. H. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents has supported
the impugned judgment and has contended that the Tribunal has considered all the
relevant provisions of the scheme and has rightly came to the conclusion that the
scheme would be applicable to the respondents and has committed no error in
directing the respondents to apply the provisions of the scheme and to confer
temporary status upon the respondents. Mr. Das has contended that there is no error
apparent on the face of records, which requires interference of this Court in exercise
of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
and the writ petition being meritless deserved to be dismissed.
10. No other or further submissions, grounds or contentions have been raised by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
11. As can be seen from a bare reading of the impugned judgment passed by the
Tribunal, it clearly indicates that the Tribunal has no doubt narrated the contentions
raised by both the sides before it, but has not given any reason for the final direction
which is given in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment except holding that the
order dated 28.01.2013, by which the representations of the present respondents
were rejected, was de hors the scheme. It is a matter of fact that the scheme was a
Page No.# 10/17
one-time measure as per the binding decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Umadevi (supra). As narrated hereinabove, by the Circular dated 07.11.1989, the
scheme was evolved for conferment of temporary status on casual labourers, which
provides as under:
"IN THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
1. Regularization of Casual Labourers of Department of Telecom and
conferment of temporary status - 1. A Scheme for conferring temporary
status on casual labourers who are currently employed and have
rendered a continuous service of atleast one year has been approved by
the Telecom Commission. Details of the Scheme are furnished in the
Annexure.
2. Immediate action may be taken to confer temporary status on all
eligible casual labourers in accordance with the above scheme.
3.1 Instruction were issued to stop fresh recruitment and employment of
casual labourers for any type of work in Telecom Circles/Districts. Casual
labourers could be engaged after 30.03.1985. In Project and electrification
Circles only for specific works and on completion of the work the casual
labourers so engaged were required to be retrenched. According to the
instructions subsequently issued, fresh recruitment of casual labourers even
for specific works for specific periods in Projects and Electrification Circles
also should not be resorted to.
3.2 In view of the above instructions normally no casual labourers engaged
after 30.03.1985 would be available for consideration for conferring
temporary status. In the unlikely event of there being any cases of casual
labourers engaged after 30.03.1985, requiring consideration for conferment
of temporary status, such cases should be referred to the Telecom
Commission with relevant details and particulars regarding the action taken
Page No.# 11/17
against the officers under whose authorization/approval the irregular
engagement/non-retrenchment was resorted to.
3.3. No casual labourer who has been recruited after 30.03.1985 should be
granted temporary status without specific approval from this Office.
4. The Scheme furnished in the Annexure has the concurrence of Member
(Finance) of the Telecom Commission, vide No. SMF/78/89, dated 27.9.1989.
Annexure
Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme
1. This Scheme shall be called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status
and regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications,
1989".
2. This Scheme will come into force with effect from 1.10.1989 onwards.
3. This Scheme is applicable to the casual labourers employed by the
Department of Telecommunications.
PROVISIONS
4. The provisions in the Scheme would be as under -
(A) Vacancies in the Group 'D' Cadres in various offices of the Department
of Telecommunications would be exclusively filled by regularization of
casual labourers and no outsiders would be appointed to the cadre except
in the case of appointments on compassionate grounds, till the
absorption of all existing casual labourers fulfilling the eligibility conditions
including the educational qualifications prescribed in the relevant
recruitment rules.
However, regular Group 'D' staff rendered surplus for any reason will have
prior claim for absorption against existing/future vacancies.
In the case of illiterate casual labourers, the regularization will be
Page No.# 12/17
considered only against those posts in respect of which illiteracy will not
be an impediment in the performance of duties.
They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which
they had worked continuously as casual labourer for the purpose of age
limits prescribed for appointment to the Group 'D' cadre, if required.
Outside recruitment for filling up the vacancies in Group 'D' will be
permitted only under the condition when eligible casual labourers are
NOT available.
(B) Till regular Group 'D' vacancies are available to absorb all the casual
labourers to whom this scheme is applicable, they would be conferred a
temporary status, as per the details given below.
5. Temporay Status
(i) Temporary Status would be conferred on all the casual labourers currently
employed and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, out
of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206
days in the case of offices observing five days week). Such casual labourers will
be designated as Temporary Mazdoor.
(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the
creation/availability of regular Group 'D' posts.
No change in duties
(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer would not involve any
change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates
of pay on a need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment
unit/territorial circles on the basis of availability of work.
(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not, however, be
brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through
Page No.# 13/17
regular selection process for group 'D' posts.
Entitlement
6. Temporary status would entitle the casual labourers to the following
benefits:-
(i) Wages at daily rates with reference to the minimum of the pay scale for a
regular Group 'D' official including DA, HRA and CCA.
(ii) Benefits in respect of increments in pay scale will be admissible for every
one year of service subject to performance of duty for at least 240 days (206
days in administrative offices observing 5 days week) in the year.
(iii) Leave entitlement will be on pro rata basis, one day for every 10 days of
work. Casual leave or any kind of leave will not be admissible. They will also be
allowed to carry forward the leave at their credit on their regularization. They
will not be entitled to the benefit of encashment of leave on termination of
services for any reason of their quitting service.
(iv) Counting of 50% of service rendered under Temporary Status for the
purpose of retirement benefits after their regularization.
(v) After rendering three years continuous service on attainment of temporary
status, the casual labourers would be treated at par with temporary Group 'D'
employees for the purpose of contribution to General Provident Fund and would
also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the
same conditions as are applicable to temporary group 'D' employees, provided
they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of this
Department.
(vi) Until they are regularized, they would be entitled to Productivity Linked
Bonus only at the rates as applicable to casual labour.
7. No benefits other than those specified above will be admissible to casual
labourers with Temporary Status.
Termination of Service
Page No.# 14/17
8. Despite conferment of temporary status, the services of a casual labourer
may be dispensed with in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground of non-availability of work. A
casual labourer with temporary status can quit service by giving one month's
notice.
9. If a labourer with temporary status commits a misconduct and the same is
proved in the enquiry after giving him reasonable opportunity, his services
will be dispensed with. They will not be entitled to the benefits of
encashment of leave on termination of services.
10. The Department of Telecommunications will have the power to make
amendments in the Scheme and/or to issue instructions in detail within the
framework of the Scheme."
12. As the record unfolds, by a letter No. 269-4/93-STN dated 25.06.1993, the
scheme was extended, as a special case, to those casual labourers who had been
engaged after 31.03.1985 till 22.06.1988 and were working in Project Circles and
Railway Electrification Circles.
13. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners is correct in asserting that the
respondents have suppressed material fact inasmuch as the respondents filed O.A.
261/2013 without disclosing the fact that the earlier Original Application, being O.A.
No. 239/2012 was filed by the very respondents. It is also specifically brought on
record by the petitioners that all the respondents were disengaged between
01.06.1998 to 13.06.1998. Therefore, they were not in casual service under the BSNL
as on 01.08.1998, i.e. the cut-off date under the scheme. It is not the case of the
respondents that they were working under any Project or were engaged in Railway
Electrification works. Even in the Original Application O.A. 261/2013, more particularly
in paragraphs 4 thereof, the respondents have stated that their initial engagements
were from 1991 to 1997, which is eventually prior to the cut-off date, i.e. 01.08.1998.
Page No.# 15/17
However, except those particular statements, no particulars of their actually continuing
as casual labourers are brought on record by the respondents vis-à-vis the petitioners
who have specifically averred in paragraphs 7(i) and 7(v) of the writ petition that the
engagement of the respondents had been discontinued and that they were not in
casual service as on 01.08.1998, i.e. the cut-off date as per the scheme.
14. The provisions of a scheme by way of one-time measure has to be read as it is
and the same cannot be tinkered with by extending its provisions to suit a particular
class of casual labourers. There is nothing on record to show, even remotely, that the
respondents fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the scheme. Thus, the Tribunal has
committed error apparent on the face of the record in holding that the respondents
were continuing in their engagement as casual labourers as on 01.08.1998 although
no such material has been produced by the respondents and, hence, such error is an
obvious error on the part of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also as such given no
reasons for coming to the conclusion that conferment of temporary status to the
respondents is justifiable. On the contrary, the petitioners have brought on record the
dates of disengagement of the respondents by way of Annexure-17 to the writ petition
(Annexure-1 to the Written Statement submitted before the Tribunal), which reads as
under:
"LIST OF APPLICANTS WITH DATE OF DISENGAGEMENT
Sl. No. Name Date of disengagement
1 Nipu Hazarika 10.06.1998
2 Pobitra Chutia 01.01.1998
3 Atul Gogoi 01.06.1998
4 Sri Jitul Neog 01.01.1998
5 Mafizur Rahman 01.04.1998
6 Durgeswar Khanikar 01.06.1998
Page No.# 16/17
7 Mahendra Borah 01.06.1998
8 Sunaber Ali 01.06.1998
9. Bipin Borah 01.06.1998
10. Rati Kanta Gogoi 01.06.1998
11 Anil Changmai 01.01.1998
12 Moni Kanta Chutia 01.01.1998
13 Promod Gogoi 13.06.1998
14 Bhaben Gogoi 01.04.1998
15 Alauddin Ahmed 01.04.1998
16 Jitu Hazarika 05.06.1998
17 Mridul Lahon 01.06.1998
18 Dipen Hazarika 01.06.1998
19 Makan Gogoi 01.05.1998
20 Binoy Gogoi 01.06.1998
21 Dharani Gogoi 01.06.1998
22 Nirupama Buragohain 01.06.1998
The Tribunal has not even considered this aspect.
15. The Tribunal has also not examined the main criteria of the scheme and, in
absence of any material the Tribunal has given a general direction for applicability of
the scheme and such direction is based on no material.
16. Even by the order dated 28.01.2013, which was passed pursuant to the order
dated 13.08.2012 of the CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 239/2012, the petitioners
have categorically stated that the respondents were not in engagement as on
01.08.1998. It is also seen that the Tribunal has not even considered the aspect that
the respondents approached the Tribunal after a lapse of almost ten years of the
Page No.# 17/17
passing of the first order. In totality, therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in
granting temporary status to the respondents and such finding is based on erroneous
reading of the scheme, without any material, much less any substantial material, and
without any reason.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The
impugned judgment dated 29.09.2015, passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in Original Application No. 261/2013 is hereby quashed and
set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
