2 IN THE HtGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 30/2011 % Judgment Delivered on: 27.04.2011 ASHOK KUMAR T-, , Petitioner Through; Mr. Kunwar C.M. Khan, Adv. versus DEEPAK GUPTA & ANR n,,. ^ , ~r. ^ Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh and Mr. Kunal Kahol Advs. 3 + CONT.CAS(C) 31/2011 % VIJENDAR SINGH £, ORS. Petitioners Through: Mr. Kunwar C.M. Khan, Adv. versus vj S raw at & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishor Jha, Adv. alongwith Mr. Jagdish Prasad and Mr. Hari Om, Executive Engineer 4 + CONT.CAS(C) 33/2011 LAXMAN PRASAD Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunwar C.M. Khan, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishor Jha, Adv. alongwith Mr. Jagdish Prasad and Mr. Hari Om, Executive Engineer CORAM : HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTArMS 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CONT. CAS(C)No.30/2011, CONT. CAS(C)No.31/2011 & CONT. CAS(C)No.33/2011 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified r r,^ SISTAMIr 1- (Of^AL) 1, The petitioners had approached the Centrai Administrative Tribunal by filing an OA. Primary grievance of the petitioners before the CAT was that the petitioners are continuously working with the respondent as drivers for almost 20 years with artificial breaks only with a view to avoid giving them permanent employment. Petitioner prays for permanent employment. The OA was allowed on 23.07.1999. The operative portion reads as under; "/ have carefully considered the submissions of ail the counsel present for both the sides. The nature of work performed was that of a Driver. There was no third party contractor, in ail these cases the applicants are both the contractors and executors. They worked with the vehicle and they are paid their wages, euphemistically known as a contract amount, it is a clear camouflage for employing a daily rated worker as a daily mazdoor for driving a car regularly year after year. In view of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Laiji Ram (Supra) I hold that the applicants are entitled to consideration for temporary status which orders shall be passed by the respondents within a tA period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with the scheme. Thereafter, if there is any post vacant to be filled up the applicants shall be considered alongwith others. In considering the applicants; either or a Group D post or for a Driver post, the earlier experience of the applicants shall be considered and given weightage. Age relaxation shall be fully provided." 2. Aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondent herein filed a writ petition which was disposed of by Division Bench by partially modifying the order of CAT. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to comply with directions contained in the order of CAT and also the Division CONT. CAS(C)No.30/2011, CONT. CAS(C)No.31/2011 & CONT. CAS(C)No.33/2011 Page 2 of 3 4 Bench. Counsel for the respondent disputes the same and submits that the case of the petitioner was considered and it was found that the petitioner was not eligible under the group D as no temporary status could be provided to them as OM dated 10.09.1993 is not applicable to group C posts and the temporary status is applicable to only group D motor lorry drivers. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the Judgment passed by the CAT as also ^ the Division Bench and that only a sketchy order has been passed without dealing with the main issues raised by the petitioner before CAT. 3. After some hearing in the matter, it is agreed that the respondents will reconsider the case of the petitioners in the light of judgment of CAT and Division Bench within a period of eight weeks and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 4. Petition is disposed of in above terms. As prayed, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner will be entitled to take recourse to such remedies which may be available in accordance with law. G.S. SISTANI, J. April 27, 2011 ns com. CAS(C)No.30/2011, CONT. CAS(C)No.31/2011 & CONT. CAS(C)No.33/2011 Page 3 of 3