IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17963 of 1999 Between: 1 The Director General(telecommunication) Representing Union Of India New Delhi-001. 2 The General Manager Telecommunications Chandrmoulinagar Guntur-522 001. 3 The Divisional Engg Microwave Maintenance Southern Telecom Sub-Region Guntur-522 002. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Central Administrative Tribunal Rep by its Registrar Hyderabad Bench , HACA Bhavan Hyderabad 2 B.Subrahmanyam S/o.Subba rao Jagadaguntapalem Pedaravuru-522 203 Guntur Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order Dt: 26-7-1999 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.422/98 passed by the 1st respondent and declare the same as illegal and unjust and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.C.SURYANARAYANA The Court made the following : ORDER :: THE HOH’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WP No.17963 of 1999 ORDER : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 26-7-1999 passed in OA No.422 of 1998 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad. 2. The respondents in the said OA are the writ petitioners herein and the 2nd respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. The subject matter in the OA was whether the applicant- 2nd respondent herein was entitled to be enlisted at appropriate place in the seniority list of casual mazdoors of Guntur Telecom District as on 1-10-1989 or on any other date from which the seniority list was first prepared after the applicant was recruited and engaged as casual labourer and whether that seniority was required to be carried forward so that he could be considered eligible for securing temporary status and regularization. 3. The facts stated are:- the applicant-2nd respondent herein was engaged in 1989 as casual labour and he worked for different spells, till he was made to leave the service in the 1994. The applicant aggrieved by his disengagement from service filed OA No.1259 of 1994 and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 5-10-1994 directing the respondents therein to enlist the applicant and engage him for casual work in preference to freshers and persons with lesser service than him and to consider his case for grant of temporary status in accordance with rules and instructions on the subject. It is stated that by letter dated 17-7- 1996 the Department informed the applicant that as per the orders of the Tribunal, his name has been entered in the live casual register at sl. No.4 according to his seniority and by a subsequent letter dated 17-3-1997, it was reiterated by the Department that the applicant’s name was entered in the live register at sl.no.4 and that he would be given preference over freshers/juniors as and when occasion arise. 4. The Tribunal by the impugned order having regard to these two letters dated 17-7-1996 and also the subsequent letter dated 17-3-1997 addressed by the Department to the applicant that the applicant’s name was entered in the live casual register at sl. No.4, directed the department (petitioners herein) to re-engage the applicant and also confer temporary status on him within one month from the date of his re-engagement. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed by the respondents in the OA. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-officials of the department. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the department formulated the scheme for regularization of casual labourers and casual labourers (grant of temporary status and regularization) scheme and all eligible mazdoors who satisfied the eligibility conditions were conferred with temporary employee status. It is stated that the applicant is in the seniority of live causal labour register in Guntur SSA and persons in that live cause labour register at Sl.nos.1,2 & 3 have not been accommodated and the applicant being at Sl. No.4 will have to wait till his case come up for consideration and the Tribunal erred in directing to confer temporary status to the applicant by re-engaging him into service. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant-2nd respondent herein is absent and the matter was also adjourned earlier on three occasions to enable the learned counsel to argue the matter. 8. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. It is the case the of the Department that the applicant was engaged for doing temporary jobs of casual nature in Microwave Station, Tenali from June 1989 and during the days when the regular mazdoors working in the station were given weekly off or were on leave, in effect, he was engaged only for 3 days in a week and 10- 15 days in a month during the off/leave periods of regular RM/Group-D staff. It is also stated that the applicant was not a regular mazdoor like those who were recruited by selection from amongst such of those persons sponsored through employment exchange. Admittedly the applicant worked in live casual labour register in Guntur SSA division and for the purpose of conferment of temporary status, the applicant has to wait till the persons in the live casual labour register at sl.nos.1, 2 & 3 are conferred temporary status and under those circumstances the Tribunal ought not to have directed to confer temporary status to the applicant consequent on his re-engagement within a month from the date of the order. The Apex Court in a case filed by the similarly placed person in TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER vs. K. RAJA MURAGASURYAN held thus: “The Department had already framed a scheme for granting temporary status on regularization of casual employees known as ‘casual labourers’ (grant of temporary status and regularization) scheme of the Department of Telecommunication, 1989. There was therefore no occasion for the Tribunal to direct the Department to frame yet another scheme. If the respondents are entitled to the benefit under the scheme and come within the purview they would beget that benefit but not otherwise. The department cannot be asked to go on framing the schemes to accommodate all groups of casual workers because it would be an unending exercise. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal but state that if the respondents are entitled or fall within the scheme, they may get the advantage but not otherwise. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.” 9. In the instant case the applicant was engaged for doing temporary jobs of casual nature in Microwave Station, Tenali from June 1989 and during the days when the regular mazdoors working in the station were given weekly off or were on leave and in effect he was engaged only for 3 days in a week and 10-15 days in a month during the off/leave periods of regular RM/Group-D staff. In the view of the decision of the Apex Court, in the above decision, we are of the view that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in giving directions to re-engage and confer temporary status on the applicant. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ___________________ Sanjay Kumar, J Dated : 28-1-2009 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRR}