IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2951 of 2006 NAVIN CHANDRA SINGH Son of Sri Ram Briksh Singh, Village Nandgola, P.O. Patharghatta, District Bhagalpur Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA through The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Patana Circle, Patna 800001. 2. The Director General, Archaeological Survey Of India, Patana Circle. 3. The Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, Patna Circle. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna through its Registrar. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/S. Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate, Braj Nandan Tiwari & K. Ravish. For the Respondents 1 to 4: Mr. Sanjay Kumar. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 20th October, 2008. The unsuccessful original applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal has approached this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction by filing this writ petition. The controversy is short and it is: whether the petitioner is entitled to temporary status under the scheme “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 (for short „the scheme of Government of India, 1993‟). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as - 2 - casual labourer at Vikramshila, Anti Chak, Bhagalpur for the period from 5.9.1987 to 30.9.1987. His engagement as a casual labourer was extended from 1.11.1987 to 15.11.1987, 16.11.1987 to 29.11.1987, 1.12.1987 to 15.12.1987 and 16.12.1987 to 31.12.2987. That the petitioner was not engaged for almost six years as casual labour thereafter is not in dispute. He claims to have worked as casual labour at Sasaram for the period 6.12.1993 to 31.12.1994, 13.1.1995 to 31.12.1995, 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1996 and 1.1.1997 to 31.3.1997. He was disengaged from the service thereafter. 3. The question that falls for determination is: whether the petitioner having worked as casual labour during the period noticed above is covered by the Scheme of Government of India, 1993 and entitled to any relief thereunder. 4. The aforesaid Scheme came into force with effect from 1.9.1993. The said scheme is applicable to the casual labourers in employment of the Ministries/Departments of Government of India and their attached and Subordinate Offices from the date of issue of the Order. The said scheme is not applicable to the casual workers in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and Department of Posts as these Departments have their own schemes. We may straight away observe that the Scheme of Government of India, 1993 is applicable to the labourers engaged in the Archeological Department. Clause 4 of the scheme which is relevant for consideration of the controversy in the present writ petition reads thus : “ 4. Temporary status – (i) Temporary status - 3 - 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 atleast one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of atleast 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week). (ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Group “D” posts. (iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer would not involve and change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circle 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 regular selection process for Group „D‟ posts.” 5. A bare look at the aforesaid provision would leave no manner of doubt that the benefit of temporary status could only be given to those casual labourers who were in the employment on the date the Scheme came into force i.e. 01.09.1993 and have rendered continuous service of at least one year i.e. he must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of office observing 5 days week). The petitioner does not fulfill the twin conditions of eligibility prescribed in the afore-referred clause. He was neither in the employment on the date of issue of the Scheme nor he had rendered a continuous service of at least one year i.e. engaged for a period of at least 240 days or 206 days, as the case may be. As noticed above the Scheme came into effect from 1.9.1993. Prior thereto the petitioner was engaged only for the period from 5.9.1987 to 31.12.1987. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he was out - 4 - of casual employment from the period from 31.12.1987 to 5.12.1993. It would be, thus, seen that he had hardly worked for 100 days or so for the period from 5.9.1987 to 31.12.1987. In other words prior to coming into force of the Scheme he had not rendered continuous service of at least one year i.e. service for a period of 240 days or 206 days as the case may be. 6. The expression “who are in employment on the date of issue of the O.M.” indicates that the Scheme is applicable to the casual labourers in engagement on the date of coming into force of the Scheme. The Scheme is not applicable to those casual labourers who are not in employment as casual labour on 1.9.1993. That the petitioner was not in employment on 1.9.1993 is an admitted fact. This is neither an ongoing scheme nor it provides for general guidelines of giving temporary status to the casual worker, who has rendered continuous service of one year at any point of time. 7. In our view, the Tribunal has considered the matter in right perspective and committed no error in dismissing the Original Petition which was wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/- - 5 -