CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4708 OF 2006 ****** In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ******* 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Revenue Building, Bailey Road, Patna-800 001, Bihar. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Revenue Building, Bailey, Road, Patna-800001 (Bihar). 4. The Zonal Accounts Officer, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Zonal Accounts Office, 4th Floor, Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna- 800001. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Umesh Kumar Mandal, son of Late Tapeshwar Mandal, aged about 22 years, working as Daily Wage Worker under the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar Region, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna (Bihar. 2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. ... Respondents. ******* For The Petitioner: Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate & Assistant Solicitor General. For Respondent No.1: Mr. J.P. Shukla, Sr. Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ******* S K Katriar & Kishore K. Mandal, JJ. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.2.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No.220 of 2005 (Umesh Kumar Mandal Vs. The Union of India and others), by which the Tribunal has set 2 aside Order No.100 of 2004-05, dated 2.12.2004 (Annexure-2), whereby wages at higher rates were granted to respondent no.1 herein, and has further directed to offer him engagement on the same terms and conditions as stated in the letter dated 11.11.2004 (Annexure A/3 before the Tribunal), with consequential directions. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Respondent no.1 worked as a casual labour on daily- wages in one of the offices of the Income Tax Department in Patna, whereafter he was not engaged at all. It is further relevant to state that he was in the employment of a private contractor from August 2003, and onwards. The authorities issued order dated 11.11.2004, granting higher wages to respondent no.1 herein. It was later on detected that there was no occasion to issue the order because respondent no.1 herein was not working as a casual labour with the department, having last worked in November 2001, and the order dated 11.11.2004, was recalled by the aforesaid order dated 2.12.2004 (Annexure-2). This was followed by the aforesaid O.A. No.220 of 2005, which has been allowed by the impugned order. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The original applicant (respondent no.1 herein) had prayed for the following reliefs in the original application: 3 “8. Relief(s) sought for:- In view of the facts mentioned in paras 4 & 5 above, the applicant prays for the following reliefs: (a) the impugned Office Order No.100 of 04- 05 dt. 2nd Dec./2004 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patna, the R.No.2 that the order granting revised wages to the applicant i.e. Rs.2550/- + DA made vide office order No.97 of 04-05 dt. 11th Nov./2004 is hereby cancelled with retrospective effect on and from 11.11.2004, substance of which is contained in Annexure-A/6, may be quashed/set aside; (b) the respondents may be directed to provide the work as usual and to consider the case for regularisation of his service at par his juniors; (c) any other orders/directions as deemed fit and proper may be passed in the circumstances of the case; (d) Cost incidental to the proceeding be awarded.” 4. It appears to us that respondent no.1 herein had last worked as casual labour in November 2001, and, therefore, there was no occasion to grant him higher rates when he was so engaged on 11.11.2004, the date on which the order was issued granting higher wages. The authorities, therefore, rightly passed the order dated 2.12.2004 (Annexure-2), recalling the order dated 11.11.2004. In view of the position that respondent no.1 was not engaged on 11.11.2004, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to grant wages at higher rates to respondent no.1. In that view of the matter, we do not find any fault with the order dated 2.12.2004, 4 and the Tribunal, therefore, erred in setting aside the order. 4. It appears that the Tribunal has also directed the authorities to offer engagement to respondent no.1 on the same terms and conditions as stated in the aforesaid letter dated 11.11.2004. The admitted position is that respondent no.1 herein had last worked in November 2001, and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to issue the direction to give him engagement. The Tribunal has also failed to attach due importance to the factual position that he was in the meanwhile engaged by the private contractor(s). We do not find any justification on the part of the Tribunal to direct the authorities to offer engagement to respondent no.1 herein. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.2.2006, passed in O.A. No.220 of 2005, is hereby set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 10th day of February, 2010. S.K.Pathak/ (N.A.F.R.)