IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21492 of 2008 Between: Smt. P.Padma W/o. B.Kumar, aged 28 years, occupation:Contingent, Office of Customs & Central Excise, Bowenpally, M.Division, Hyderabad- IV, Commissionerate, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad Zone, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad Commissionerate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV, Commissionerate. 4 G.Chandraiah S/o. G.Venkatesh O/o. Customs & Central Excise, Medchal Range, Bowenpally, K.Division, Hyderabad-IV,Commissionerate, Hyderabad, R/o. Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to a Writ, Order or Direction more especially one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records in O.A.No. 525 of 2005 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad dated 18.10.2005 and quash the same and also proceedings of 3rd respondent in C.no. 1/22/1/005, Asmn. Dated 31.03.2005 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to established principles of natural justice and regularize the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner in the respondents organization, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. .21492 of 2008 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 18.10.2005 passed in O.A.No.525 of 2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), rejecting the case of the petitioner holding that she being a part time worker, is not entitled to conferment of temporary status. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was engaged as casual worker with the respondent organization on 8.9.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation for grant of temporary status and for regularization of her services in terms of the office memorandum dated 10.9.1993, which provides that temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers, who are in employment on the date of issue of the said office memorandum and who have rendered continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of not less than 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week). The respondent authorities recommended her case for grant of temporary status by letter, dated 16.11.1998. As no action has been taken, the petitioner also made several representations on 4.1.2002 ,1.4.2002, 23.7.2002 and 16.1.2004. According to the petitioner, the respondents instead of regularizing her services, intended to terminate her services by introducing a new system bringing a contractor and engaging the services through a contractor, vide letter dated 27.9.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner along with other similarly situated employee, filed O.A.No.1115 of 2004, wherein directions were given to the respondents to consider her case for granting temporary status and pass a speaking order on the representation made by the petitioner. The respondents gave personal hearing to the petitioner, wherein she claimed that she had completed 206 days of continuous service as on 10.9.1993, but even then her request for grant of temporary status was rejected, vide order dated 31.3.2005, on the ground that she worked on part time basis and the scheme of 1.9.1993 is not an ongoing scheme. Thus, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.525 of 2005 seeking directions to the respondents to grant temporary status and regularize her services pursuant to the office memorandum dated 10.9.1993 and the Tribunal, by reason of the impugned order dated 18.10.2005, rejected the case of the petitioner. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondents in their counter before the Tribunal had stated that the case of the petitioner was considered pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1115 of 2004 and the claim for temporary status/regularization was rejected by a detailed and reasoned order on the ground that she worked as casual labour on part time basis – 4 hours a day at the rate of Rs.4/- per day since September,1992 and she was not employed through Employment Exchange and that the petitioner did not complete 206 days of work as on 1.9.1993, which is pre-requisite for grant of temporary status, vide Clause (4) of the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum dated 10.9.1993 and that she was working on part time basis as on 1.9.1993 and there is no provision in the said Office Memorandum for conferring temporary status for a part time worker. Therefore, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for either conferment of temporary status or regularization. 4. Clause (4) (i) of the Scheme called Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, which came into force with effect from 1.9.1993, reads as under: “(i)Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this O.M. 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.)” 5. The Tribunal after taking into facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner being a part time worker, is not entitled for conferment of temporary status in view of the Clause (4) (i) of the Scheme of Government of India, 1993, which came into force with effect from 1.9.1993. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been working as casual worker since 17 years in the respondent’s organization and even though she completed 240 days service in a year, the services of the petitioner have not been regularized. He further contended that the respondents have regularized the services of similarly situated employees by relaxing the conditions who have been appointed on par with the petitioner, but the services of the petitioner were not regularized which is illegal. He also further contended that the Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not completed continuous period of 240 days and the Tribunal has failed to consider the factual aspects of the case and erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, he prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Central Excise. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also submissions made by the learned counsel, it appears that the very engagement of the petitioner was as casual labour on part time basis- 4 hours a day at the rate of Rs.4/- per day since September,1992 and that she was not employed through employment exchange and she did not complete 206 days of work as on 1.9.1993, which is pre-requisite for grant of temporary status as per Clause (4) of the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum dated 10.9.1993 and she was working on part time basis as on 1.9.1993. The Tribunal, after taking all the said aspects into consideration, has rightly rejected the case of the petitioner and the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 29-09-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}