DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI AND ORS.versusMANAS DEY AND ORS.

A             DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN MANDI HOUSE,
                          NEW DELHI AND ORS.
                                  v.
                          MANAS DEY AND ORS.

                                NOVEMBER 17, 2005
B
                   [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDR.V. RAVEENDRAN,JJ.]



C
            Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization)
      Scheme, 1.993--Clause 4-Nature ofscheme-Held: Not an ongoing scheme-
      To acquire "temporary" status, the casual labourer should be in employment
                                                                                     -
      as on the date ofcommencement of the Scheme and also should have rendered
      a continuous service of at least one year.

            Respondents tiled 0.A. claiming grant of temporary status under Casual
D     Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993 on
      the ground that they had rendered service from 1988 to 1997 as casual
      workers. Tribunal allowed O.A. holding that it 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. High Cour~ affirmed the order of Tribunal. Hence the
E     present appeal.

            Allowing the appeal, the Court

            HELD: Clause 4 of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
      Regularization) Scheme, 19.93 states that the conferment of "temporary"
F     status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on
      the date of commencement of the Scheme. Clause 4 of the Scheme does not
      envisage it as a~ ongoing scheme. In order to acquire "temporary" status,
      the casual labo~rer should have been in employment as on the date of
      commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered a continuous
G     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. (300-G; 301-A, BJ
I-I                                       298
  DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN v. MANAS DEY (PASAYAT,J.] 299

      Union of India v. Gagan Kumar, JT (2005) 6 SC 410, relied on.             A
      Union of India and Anr. v. Mohan Lal and Ors., (200214 SCC 573, held
inapplicable.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6857 of2005.
                                                                                B
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.2004 of the Calcutta High
Court in W.P.C.T. No. 1341 of2001.

      Rajeev Sharma for the Appellants.

     Dhruv Mehta, Rana S. Biswas and Mrs. Sarla Chandra for the                 C
Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

       Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a
                                                                                D
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that the respondent were
entitled to the benefit under the scheme called Casual Labourers (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 of Government of India.
Judgment and order dated 7th September, 2001 passed by the Calcutta Bench
of Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') in OA No. 992 of E
1998 filed by the respondent under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribupal
Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') was held to be in order. Factual background in
a nutshell is as follows:

     ~spondents filed an original application before the Tribunal claiming
that they had rendered service from 1988 to 1997 as casual workers. According   F
to them they have completed the requisite period of service as described
hereinbelow:

       "It was claimed that the department had circulated by O.M. No. 51016/
       2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10.9.1993 a scheme for grant of temporary status
       and regularization of casual workers. The scheme is called Casual G
       Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of
       Govt. oflndia, 1993. The said scheme came into force with effect from
       1.9.1993. The scheme envisaged grant of temporary status to casual
       labourer who had worked at least 240 days in a year (206) days i11i the
       case of offices observing 5 days a week)".                              H
    300                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [~005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         The relevant portion of paragraph 3 of the scheme reads as follows:

                "This scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of
            the Ministries/Department of Government of India and their attached
            and subordinate officer, on the date of issue of these order."

B         Paragraph 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows:

            "Temporary Status - Temporary status would be conferred on all
            casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this
            O.M. and have rendered a continuous service of at least one year,
            which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at
C           least 240(206 days in the cases of offices observing 5 days a week)."

           It was held by the High Court that though this Court had in Civil
    Appeal No. 224 of 2000 and ·connected appeals held that the scheme in
    question was not an on going process but one time scheme yet the judgment
    and order of the Tribunal having been rendered on 7th September, 200 I long
D   before the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal referred to above, a right
    which had arisen from the Tribunal's order has beeh saved by this Court in
    its judgment. It was noted that positive direction has been given by this Court
    in the judgment that those who had already been given temporary status on
    the assumption that the scheme is an on going scheme should not be deprived
E   of the said status because of the judgment.

          According to learned counsel for the appellant the High Court's judgment
    is clearly erroneous on the face of the judgment in Union of India v. Mohan
    Pal and Ors., reported in [2002] 4 SCC 573.

F        On the contrary learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
    observations in paragraph 11 of Mohan Lal's case (supra) protect them as
    was rightly observed by the High Court.

          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
G   1.9.1993.

           Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of"temporary"
    status is to be given to the casual labourers who were ih employment as on
    the date of commencement M the Scheme. Tribunal has taken the view that
    this is an ongoing scheme and as and when casual l~bourers complete 240
H   days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a
-     DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN v. MANAS DEY [PASA YAT, J.J 301

    week), they are entitled to get "temporary" status. We do not think that clause A
    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 a 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 officers observing 5 days a week. From clause 4 of the . B
    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 ·C
    be absorbed in Group "D" posts.

           This position was highlighted in Union of India v. Gagan Kumar, JT
    (2005) 6 SC 410.

          Above being the position the Tribunal's order is clearly untenable and    D
    the High Court was in error in proceeding under the assumption that the
    protection given to some of the parties in Mohan Lal 's case (supra) applied
    to the facts of the present case.

          As was observed in Gagan Kumar's case (supra) the observations in
    paragraph 11 of Mohan Lat's case (supra) were rendered in a different factual   E
!
i   background and context and have no application to the facts of the present
    case. Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

    D.G.                                                      Appeal allowed.