IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: CWP No.17860 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : February 18,2009 Ishar Dass .......petitioner versus Union of India and others ......respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR PRESENT: None NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar in the post office building, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa in the year 1974. He has completed 33 years of service as part time casual labourer on the post of Chowkidar. The petitioner is relying on the scheme dated 17-02-1988 for the absorption of casual labourers. The petitioner is, further, relying on the issuance of clarification in the letter dated 17-02-1988 which is as under :- “ Casual labourers (full time or part time) for the purpose of computation of eligible services half of the service rendered as casual labourer should be taken into account. That is, if part time casual labourers has served for 480 days in a period of two years he will be treated for purpose of recutt. To have completed one year of service as full time casual labourer.” It is further submitted in the petition that his case was covered under the Scheme dated 12-04-1991 known as Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation Scheme) and he was entitled to the CWP No.17860 of 2007 -2- status of full time casual labourer. His representation to consider his case for confirming the temporary status on him was dismissed vide order dated 17-02-2005. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed OA No.378/HR/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said O.A. was dismissed vide order dated 31-01-2007. He filed review application which was also dismissed vide order dated 10-04-2007. The respondents contested the submissions of the petitioner by filing a written statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It has been categorically stated in the written statement that his case is different on account of the fact that he was not performing his duties from 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. but is performing duties from 5.30 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. His duties are, therefore, treated as 5 hours and he is being paid accordingly. In view of the contents of the scheme dated 12-04-1991, he was not at all eligible for grant of temporary status as his working hours as per the DG (Posts) letter (Annexure R-5) are deemed to be 5 hours per day. In fact, in a similar case in Civil Appeal Nos.360-361 of 1994, titled as Secretary, Ministry of Communications and others vs. Sakkubai and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order :- “ These priorities are as follows : (i) NTC Group `D’ officials. (ii) EDAs of the same Division. (iii) Casual labourers (full time or part time. For purpose of computation of eligible service, half of the service rendered a part time casual labourer should be taken into account. That is, if a part time casual labourer has served for 480 days in a period of 2 years he will be treated, for purposes of rectt. to have completed one year of service as full time CWP No.17860 of 2007 -3- casual labour). (iv) EDAs of other divisions in the same Region. (v) Substitutes (not working in Metropolitan cities). (vi) Direct recruits-through employment exchanges.” The respondents have emphasized item (iii) which basically equates two years of service as a part time casual labourer within one year’s service as a full time casual labourer. They have submitted that in view of this equation they should also have been included in the Scheme framed of 12th April, 1991 on similar terms. There is some justification for this submission. However, the scheme in the granting temporary status as well as regularization. It is, however, stated before us by learned counsel for the appellants that the priorities for absorption in Group `D’ posts which were set out in the letter of 17th May, 1989 are still in force and that part time casual labourers are also entitled to absorption as per the said letter. The Scheme of 12th April, 1991 is merely for the purpose of conferring temporary status to full time casual labourers. It does not take away the benefit of the absorption conferred on part time casual labourers in terms of the letter of 17th May, 1989. He has also pointed out that it is difficult to confer temporary status on part time casual labourers. However, they will be absorbed in accordance with the priorities set out in the letter of 17th May, 1988 provided they fulfill the eligibility criteria. The Tribunal, in our view, was not right in coming to the conclusion that the Scheme for conferring temporary status to full time casual labourers is also applicable to part time casual labourers. In view of the clarification which has been made by learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find it necessary to give any further directions. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Civil Appeal arising out SLP (C) No.11908 of 1996 has submitted that the respondents were in fact full time casual CWP No.17860 of 2007 -4- workers and not part time casual workers. It is not possible for us to examine this contention since it is entirely a question of fact and in case the respondents are claiming the benefit of the Scheme of 12th April, 1991, it will be for them to take such appropriate steps as may be available to them. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.” There is nothing on record to show as to how the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the judgment passed in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Communications and others vs. Sakkubai and another (supra). In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE February 18, 2009 gurpreet