- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India v. Gagan Kumar .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, a casual labourer engaged by the Union of India, alleged that he was verbally disengaged on 31-12-2000 after having worked continuously from 1995. He filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), asserting that by 1998 he had completed 206 days of work in a calendar year—qualifying him for “temporary status” under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). The CAT accepted the claim, ordered that temporary status be accorded from 1998, and directed consequential benefits and consideration for regularisation. The Union of India challenged this before the Delhi High Court, which summarily dismissed the writ petition, effectively affirming the CAT. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Clause 4 of the 1993 DoPT Scheme is an “ongoing” provision entitling any casual labourer who completes 240/206 days of work after 1-9-1993 to temporary status, or whether it is confined only to those casual labourers who were in employment on the date of commencement of the Scheme.
- Consequent upon the above, whether the respondent was entitled to temporary status, back wages at the minimum of the relevant pay scale, and consideration for regularisation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Union of India)
- Clause 4 limits temporary status to casual labourers who were in service on 1-9-1993; it is not an ongoing entitlement.
- The CAT misinterpreted the Scheme, and the High Court dismissed the writ petition without adequate reasoning.
Respondent
- Undisputedly completed more than 206 days of service in 1998; therefore, qualified for temporary status under the Scheme.
- Relied on observations in paragraph 11 of Union of India v. Mohan Pal (2002) 4 SCC 573 to support eligibility.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Mohan Pal (2002) 4 SCC 573 | Interpretation of Clause 4 of the 1993 DoPT Scheme; requirement that casual labourer be in employment on 1-9-1993 to obtain temporary status. | The Court followed the view in Mohan Pal (para 6) to hold that the Scheme is not ongoing and rejected the respondent’s reliance on para 11 as factually distinguishable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court analysed Clause 4(1) of the 1993 Scheme, which confers temporary status on “all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year.” The Court emphasised that both conditions—being in employment on 1-9-1993 and having completed 240/206 days of work—must co-exist. It rejected the CAT’s interpretation that the Scheme operates prospectively and continuously.
Relying on its earlier decision in Mohan Pal, the Court reaffirmed that the Scheme was not meant to grant benefits to workers who completed the qualifying days of service after the commencement date if they were not in service on that date. Consequently, the respondent, who first fulfilled the 206-day criterion in 1998, fell outside the ambit of Clause 4. The Court concluded that the CAT’s order was legally unsustainable and the High Court erred by dismissing the writ petition without addressing this pivotal statutory interpretation.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; orders of the High Court and CAT set aside.
Direct Effect: The respondent is not entitled to temporary status or consequential benefits under the 1993 Scheme. No costs were awarded. The decision reaffirms the temporal limitation embedded in Clause 4, but does not create a new precedent beyond applying the existing interpretation in Mohan Pal.
Arijit Pasayat, J.— The Union of India calls in question legality of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by it. By the impugned order the High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition and in effect affirmed the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short “the Tribunal”), though it did not specifically refer to it.
2. Factual background needs to be stated in brief:
The respondent filed an original application before the Tribunal claiming that he was engaged as a casual labourer for quite some time and has been disengaged by verbal order on 31-12-2000. According to him, he had completed the requisite period of service for grant of temporary status. According to him his case is clearly covered by the Scheme circulated by the Department of Personnel and Training (in short “DOPT”) in the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions. It was claimed that the Department had circulated by OM No. 51016/2/90-Estt. (C) dated 10-9-1993 a scheme for grant of temporary status and regularisation of casual workers. The Scheme is called Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993. The said Scheme came into force with effect from 1-9-1993. The Scheme envisaged grant of temporary status to casual labourers who had worked for at least 240 days in a year (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days a week). According to the respondent he had completed the requisite period in the year 1998 and, therefore, he was eligible for grant of temporary status. The present appellant took the stand before the Tribunal that the Scheme was not an ongoing scheme but was applicable to those casual labourers who were in employment on the date of issue of the OM and had rendered continuous service of the requisite period. The Tribunal accepted the employee's stand and directed that the employee be accorded temporary status from 1998 when he had completed the requisite period of 206 days' engagement. Direction was given to grant consequential benefits (including the minimum of the appropriate scale) as his emoluments and for consideration of the case of regularisation. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court and questioned correctness of the order. The High Court by its impugned order dismissed the writ petition. The High Court recorded practically no reason for the dismissal except noting that the workman had worked as a casual labourer from 1995 to 2000.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in its view and the High Court did not take note of the submissions made, and by a cryptic non-reasoned order has dismissed the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that undisputed position being that in 1998 the respondent had rendered service for more than 206 days, no exception can be taken to the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court.
5. The controversy can be resolved on the basis of the interpretation of clause 4 of the Scheme. As already noticed, the Scheme came into effect from 1-9-1993. Clause 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows:
“4. Temporary status.—(1) ‘temporary’ status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days' week).”
6. Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of “temporary” status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. The Tribunal has taken the view that this is an ongoing scheme and as and when casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get “temporary” status. We do not think that clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing scheme. In order to acquire “temporary” status, the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered continuous service of at least one year which means that he should have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices observing 5 days a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving “temporary” status to all the casual workers, as and when they complete one year's continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given “temporary” status and later they are to be absorbed in Group ‘D’ posts.
7. A similar controversy was examined by this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Pal (2002) 4 SCC 573 and a similar view was expressed in para 6 of the judgment.
8. That being so, the Tribunal's order is clearly untenable. The High Court unfortunately did not examine the real issue involved and by a very cryptic order summarily dismissed the writ petition. The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside.
9. At this juncture it is relevant to take note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. According to him the case of the respondent employee is covered by the observations in para 11 of Mohan Pal case (2002) 4 SCC 573.
10. There is no substance in this plea. The observations in para 11 were rendered in a different factual background and content and have no application to the facts of the present case.
11. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
Alert