IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.26 of 2004 Judgment reserved on: 22.7.2008. Date of decision: 24th July, 2008. Union of India and others ..Petitioners Versus Suresh Kumar ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners.: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. This petition by the Union of India is directed against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 30- 10.2001 passed in O.A. No.272/HP/2001 whereby the petitioner has been directed to grant temporary status of Mazdoor to the respondent. The undisputed facts are that the respondent worked as daily wage Mazdoor in Satellite Earth Station, Keylong w.e.f. 1st May, 1998 onwards. The total number of working days during this period were 240 days. The respondent actually worked for 206 days. Two days were 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 National Holidays and 34 days were Sundays/work off days. Undisputedly, the respondent also actually worked for 26 days in January, 1999 and 24 days in February, 1999. There were five Sundays and one National Holiday in January and 4 Sundays in February. The Department had framed a scheme for regularization of daily-rated Mazdoors in the year 1989. The learned Tribunal held that this scheme was a continuing scheme and was not a one time scheme. Clause 5(i) of the Scheme which is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows: “5.Temporary Status: (i)Temporary Status would be conferred on all the casual labourers currently employed and who have rendered continuous service of at least one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five day week). Such casual labourers will be designated as Temporary Mazdoor.” It is not disputed that this scheme was also applied by the Department vide office memo dated 19.2.1999 and that on 26.3.1999 temporary status was granted to a number of casual labourers. The case of the respondent was rejected by the Department only on the ground that he had not actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year 1998. The learned Tribunal relied upon a Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal delivered in O.A. No.1146-HP-96 in which it was held that this scheme was 3 an ongoing scheme and would apply to all persons regardless of the date of appointment. Sh.Ashok Sharma, learned counsel has cited a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India and another vs. Mohan Lal and others, (2002) 4 SCC 573, wherein the Apex Court in para 6 held as follows: “6. Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of 'temporary' status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. Some of the Central Administrative Tribunals took the view that this 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. We do not think that clause 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 offices observing 5 days a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guidelines 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 be absorbed in Group 'D' posts.” On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it does appear to us that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the Scheme was an ongoing scheme does not appear to be correct. However, having held so it would be pertinent to note that the Apex Court itself observed that it was for the Union government to formulate any scheme as and when it found necessary. It is not disputed that vide letter dated 19.2.1999 the scheme of 1989 was made 4 applicable to the casual employees of the Department. The obvious corollary is that all casual employees working on 19.2.1999 would be covered under the scheme. The main contention on behalf of the Union of India is that in terms of the mandays chart Annexure R-2 the respondent had actually worked for only 206 days in the year 1998. We have failed to comprehend how the Department is limiting the benefit of the scheme to only those employees who had completed 240 working days in the calendar year 1998. Nothing has been placed before us to show that 240 days should have been completed in a particular calendar year. A bare perusal of Clause 5(i) quoted hereinabove clearly shows that the scheme is applicable to all those casual labourers who have rendered continuous service of at least one year out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days and 206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days’ week. We are not going into the question whether the Department while calculating the working days could have excluded the Sundays and National Holidays. Assuming for the sake of argument that this could have been done. Then also we are of the view that the entire service rendered by the respondent from Ist May, 1998 till 5 19.2.1999 when the scheme was again applied will have taken into consideration. If we take this period into consideration the workman had definitely actually worked for more than 240 days. Therefore, in our considered opinion he could not have been denied the benefit of grant of temporary status by not taking into consideration the service rendered by him from Ist January, 1999 up to 19th February, 1999 when the scheme was again made applicable. The respondent was entitled to grant of temporary status w.e.f. 19.2.1999 as granted to other casual employees. In view of the above discussion and for reasons other than those taken by the learned Tribunal we find no merit in the present petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. July 24, 2008 ( V. K. Ahuja ), J. PV