M. Mahendar Reddy vs The Chief General Manager And 3 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6360 Tel

                                   1                             RRN,J
                                                           WP No.18764 of 2019

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESWAR RAO


                      W.P NO. 18764 OF 2019

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to pass an order in the nature

of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2

for non-implementation of guidelines of the Department of

Telecommunications Rules after completion of 240 days yearly and

the Supreme Courts Judgments, order dated 01.08.2018 in Civil

Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P (Civil) Nos.

19832-19838 of 2017) for service 10 years, in spite of

representation dated 24.09.2018, the same is rejected by the

respondent no.3 vide Lr.No.E-4/HRD/KAA/CAT MAZ/2018-19/4

dated 15.10.2018 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. It has been contended by the petitioner that he has been

working as a casual mazdoor since 01.02.1986 in the office the 4th

respondent. He is eligible for getting Temporary Status Mazdoor

as per the order Lr.No.271-13/92/STN dt.22.10.1992 w.e.f.

17.12.1993. But, the respondent No.3 till filing of Writ Petition has

not considered his case for Temporary Status Mazdoor, due to 2 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

which, he lost his financial benefits and increments from the year

1993. The respondents instead of continuing petitioner's services

and conferring the benefits like temporary status and

regularization of service, terminated his services during the year

1998 on the ground that he has submitted bogus work days

certificates in support of work done by him. Aggrieved by the

same, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Hyderabad, by filing O.A.No.1046 of 1993 and the Tribunal gave

directing to the 2nd respondent to re-enquire into the matter and

continue the petitioner in the services.

2.1 It is the further contention of the petitioner that as per

the orders of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent conducted enquiry

and issued Inquiry report dt.18.07.1997 and gave one month

termination notice dt.24.07.1998. As such, the petitioner has filed

W.P.No.24018 of 1998 and one Ch. Subba Reddy also filed

W.P.No.23456 of 1998 and this Court initially passed interim

orders directing continuation of their services and finally disposed

of the Writ Petition No.24018 of 1998 along with W.P. No.23456 of 3 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

1998 by way of common order on 22-11-2000 directing the

respondents

"...to engage the petitioners afresh as casual labourers from the date of order and pay them the wages and other emoluments payable to the casual labourers. Regarding regulation of these petitioners, it shall depend upon the future exigency, any scheme to be launched by the management, the suitable of the workmen etc.,"

2.2. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the

Department of Telecom Service issued a letter No.269-94/98-STN-

II, dt.29.09.2000 for regularization of casual labourers. In view of

the said letter dated 29.09.2000, he along with one Ch. Subba

Reddy has submitted application for regularization of services, but

the respondents not considered the petitioner's application,

whereas they have considered the application of Ch. Subba Reddy

as regular Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.10.2000, but both the cases were

similar as per this Court order dt.22.11.2000 in Writ Petition

Nos.24018 of 1998 and W.P. No.23456 of 1998. The respondent

No.2 while rejecting the case of the petitioner stated that this Court 4 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

has not considered the old services, whereas he is senior to Ch.

Subba Reddy.

2.3 It is the further contention of the petitioner that the in

spite of several representations dt.08.11.1995, 26.11.1996,

14.05.1998 and finally on 24.09.2018 for promotion, but the same

was not considered by the respondents. However, the respondent

No.3 forwarded his (petitioner) eligibility conditions for the scheme

of Temporary Status Mazdoor (T.S.M) order dt.01.08.1998, through

his letter dt.08.05.2003 stating that he is engaged on 01.02.1986

and working continuously and completed 240 days in a year before

01.08.1998 with no break and he is eligible to get Temporary

Status Mazdoor (T.S.M) before 01.08.1998. However, the

respondents failed to consider his case. Accordingly, prayed to

allow the Writ Petition.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

It is stated that the petitioner was initially engaged as casual

mazdoor in their Department from 01.02.1986 and he worked in

Karimnagar sub division up to May 1987 with break periods. From

June 1987 to December 1988 and he did not work anywhere. At 5 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

the time of his re-entry i.e. on 01.01.1989 the petitioner submitted

days, particulars that he worked in Railway Electrification Project

(REP) from 6/1987 to 12/1988. The days record submitted by the

petitioner regarding REP works i.e. from 1/1985 to 1/1986 (1 year)

and from 6/1987 to 12/1988 (1 ½ years) has been sent to REP

authorities concerned for verification along with the other

candidates who produced REP days record. In that enquiry, it is

proved that all the mazdoors including the petitioner has submitted

false and fake days record to cover their considerable gap in their

past rendered service. In view of the enquiry, all these casual

mazdoor who submitted false records, were given termination on

24.07.1998. Later, they approached this Court and filed

W.P.No.24018 of 1998 and by virtue of the orders of this court on

22-11-2000, the petitioner was engaged afresh as casual labourer,

but there is no scope to consider the petitioner as permanent

employee.

3.1 It is also stated that by virtue of the orders passed by

this Court dated 22-11-2000, the petitioner is to be treated as

fresh entrant as casual labourer and the conferment of temporary 6 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

status is subject to formulation of the scheme and there is no such

scheme so far in addition to the scheme that was formulated on

07.11.1989. It is further stated that in view of standing

instructions of DOT, New Delhi Lr.No.269-4/93 STN-II

dt.12.02.1999, the petitioner could not be given Temporary Status

and grant of temporary status since the officials entry date is

01.02.1986 and he rendered service with considerable breaks more

than 1 years. No condition of brek in service beyond 1 year is to be

considered vide DOT letter dt.07.11.1989. No casual mazdoor who

have been recruited after 30.03.1985 should be granted temporary

status without the approval from DOT.

3.2 It is further stated that the petitioner approached

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad, and filed I.D.No.54 of 2004 and the said Tribunal vide

its order dt.19.032009 has decided the case of the petitioner as

follows:

"...the petitioner's claim for the regularization is based on misconceived and incorrect, and facts are misleading and he is not entitled for regularization 7 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

w.e.f.20.11.2000 as claimed by the workman and the action of the respondents is justified..." Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the

petitioner has been working as a casual mazdoor since 01.02.1986

in the office the 4th respondent and he is eligible for getting

Temporary Status Mazdoor as per the order Lr.No.271-13/92/STN

dt.22.10.1992 w.e.f. 17.12.1993. But, the respondent No.3 till

filing of Writ Petition has not considered his case for Temporary

Status Mazdoor, due to which, he lost his financial benefits and

increments from the year 1993. He further contended that the

respondents instead of continuing petitioner's services and

conferring the benefits like temporary status and regularization of

service, terminated his services during the year 1998 on the ground

that he has submitted bogus work days certificates in support of

work done by him, which is false and prayed to allow the Writ

Petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents brought to the

notice of this Court that the scheme of confirmation of regular 8 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

status i.e. temporary status of the casual labourers contained in

letter No.269-10/89/STN, dated 7.11.1989 which contemplates the

rules for formulation of temporary status at paragraph No.5 which

reads as follows:

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 day week). Such casual labourers will be designated as Temporary Mazdoor."

6.1 Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued

that since the petitioner does not fall within the parameters of the

scheme, his case was not considered for confirmation of temporary

status and regularization as he is not entitled for the

same, and even by virtue of the orders of this court in W.P.

No.24018 of 1998, the petitioner was engaged afresh as casual

labourer, but there is no scope to consider the petitioner as

permanent employee. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ

Petition.

                                     9                              RRN,J
                                                             WP No.18764 of 2019

7. Heard Sri K. Buch Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Smt. Ch. Lakshmi Kumari, learned Standing counsel for BSNL.

Perused the record.

8. Having considered the rival contentions raised by both

parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has

not continuously worked without any break as the record shows

that he worked in Karimnagar sub division up to May 1987 with

break periods. From June 1987 to December 1988 and he did not

work anywhere. This is against the conditions laid down for

temporary status of the casual labourers contained in letter

No.269-10/89/STN, dated 7.11.1989. Moreover, at the time of his

re-entry i.e. on 01.01.1989 the petitioner submitted days,

particulars that he worked in Railway Electrification Project (REP)

from 6/1987 to 12/1988. The days record submitted by the

petitioner regarding REP works i.e. from 1/1985 to 1/1986 (1 year)

and from 6/1987 to 12/1988 (1½ years) had been sent to REP

authorities concerned for verification along with the other

candidates who produced REP days record. In that enquiry, it is 10 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

proved that all the mazdoors including the petitioner has submitted

false and fake days record to cover their considerable gap in their

past rendered service. In view of the enquiry, all these casual

mazdoor who submitted false records, were given termination on

24.07.1998. Later, they approached this Court and filed

W.P.No.24018 of 1998 and by virtue of the orders of this court on

22-11-2000, the petitioner was engaged afresh as casual labourer,

but there is no scope to consider the petitioner as permanent

employee.

9. This court perused the order in W.P.No. 23456 of 1998

and batch in which the petitioner is also one of the parties, this

Court initially passed interim direction to continue the services of

the petitioners and ultimately disposed of the writ petitions with

the following order:

"Taking into consideration the fact that these petitioners have worked as casual labourers( Mazdur) under the respondent-management for such a long period ranging from 1985-86 till date, though pursuant to the interim direction granted by this court, and many of them might have already crossed the age of eligibility and without taking into consideration the genuineness 11 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

or otherwise of the certificates produced by them, it is now ordered that the respondent-management shall engage these petitioners afresh as casual laboures from this day and pay them the wages and other emoluments payable to the casual labourers from this day. Regarding regularization of these petitioners, it shall depend upon the future exigency, any scheme launched by the management, the suitability of the workmen etc."

10. In view of the observation made by the Division Bench of this

Court two things are cleared i.e. (1) majority of the persons crossed

the age limit (2) they have to be engaged "afresh" in the service.

So, these two facts indicate that though they are working for the

last several years because of the above order, they do not have any

right to say that they are continuing their services for the last 10

years or so. The petitioner filed Industrial Dispute No.54 of 2004

wherein the Labour Court observed as follows:

"...this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that petitioner's claim for the regularization is based on misconceived and incorrect facts or misleading facts and he is not entitled for regularization w.e.f.20.11.2000 as claimed by him. It is held that 12 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019

the action of the management of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in not regularizing the services of Sri M. Mahender Reddy, petitioner, w.e.f. 20.11.2000 is justified. He is not entitled for the relief claimed by him..."

11. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the

petitioner filed W.P.No.16319 of 2009. Subsequently, he withdrew

the same on 05.07.2019 with a liberty to pursue his remedies in

accordance with the law. But, he did not approach any Court of

law for the relief he sought for. So, the above attitude of the

petitioner goes to show that he has come to the Court with unclean

hands and he is habituated to file one after the other petitions in

different Courts. It is not proper for the petitioner to approach this

Court as once the case of the petitioner has been decided by the

Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24018 of 1998 on

22.11.2000 and the said order has become final.

12. Under the above circumstances, viewed from any angle,

there are no merits in this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

                                  13                          RRN,J
                                                      WP No.18764 of 2019

13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall

stand closed. No order as to costs.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J

Date: 02.12.2022 B/o

BDR