IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NOS.15404-15412 OF 2014 [S-KAT] CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.42128-42137 OF 2012 [S-KAT] IN WRIT PETITION NOS.15404-15412 OF 2014: BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JYOTHI S., WIFE OF SRI. SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. SRI. LINGARAJU, SON OF LATE SRI. APPANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SMT. YANGAMMA, WIFE OF VENKATARAM, AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. SMT. D.M. PADMAMMA, WIFE OF SRI. S. RAJESH, AGE 38 YEARS, 5. SRI. RAJESH, SON OF KRISHNAPPA, AGE 36 YEARS, 6. SRI. SIDDALINGASWAMY S., SON OF SRI. SADASHIVAMURTHY, AGE 29 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND 6 ARE WORKING AS DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES UNDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NO.55 OF 1, ‘SHILPASHREE BUILDING’, VIDYARANYA COMPLEX, VISHWESHWARANAGAR, MYSURU-570 008.
AND PETITIONERS 4 AND 5 ARE WORKING AS DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES UNDER ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HASSAN RANGE, HASSAN-573 201.
7. SRI. C.K. MAHESHWARA, 35 YEARS, SON OF SRI. C.S. KRISHNA, DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEE, OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD-I, MPS COMPLEX, CAR STREET, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
8. SRI. H.J. MAHADEVA NAYAKA, 37 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI. JAVARA NAYAKA, DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEE/CASUAL LABOURER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NO.55 OF 1, “SHILPASHREE BUILDING”, VIDYARANYA COMPLEX, VISHWESHWARANAGAR, MYSURU-570 008.
9. SRI. RAVI, 46 YEARS, SON OF SRI. RAMAIAH, DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEE/CASUAL LABOURER, OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I, COURT ROAD, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. … PETITIONERS [BY SRI.P.A.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE] AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA, TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NO.55/1, “SHILPASHREE BUILDING”, VIDYARANAYA COMPLEX, VISHWESHWARANAGAR, MYSURU-570 008.
5. ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HASSAN RANGE, HASSAN-573 201.
6. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, MPS COMPLEX, CAR STREET, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.… RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. M.VASUDEVA RAO, SENIOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSEL-ABSENT] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2014 PASSED BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH, IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.722 TO 727 OF 2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED 20.02.2014 PASSED IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.1079 OF 2013, 1197 OF 2013 AND 1393 OF 2013 VIDE ANNEXURES-B, C & D RESPECTIVELY AND ALLOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.722 TO 727 OF 2013, 1079 OF 2013, 1197 OF 2013 AND 1393 OF 2013.
* * * IN WRIT PETITION NOS.42128-42137 OF 2012: BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.M.SHASHIDHARA, SON OF K.G. MAHESHWARACHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. NO.157, ‘C’ BLOCK, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, MYSURU-577 008.
2. SRI. LOURDU NADAN E., AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, SON OF LATE HIRUDIANANDAN, RESIDING AT NO.4041, 9TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SHIVAYOGISWAMY ROAD, GANDINAGAR, MYSURU-570 007.
3. SRI. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SON OF SRI. SIDDAIAH, RESIDING AT DOOR NO-12/1 L-7, SHIVAYOGI SCHOOL GROUND, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, GANDINAGAR, MYSURU-570 007.
4. SRI. DEVARAJE URS K.A., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI. ANANTH KRISHNA URS K.V., RESIDING AT NO.74/A, KHB COLONY, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008.
5. SRI. G.V. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SON OF VENKATAKRISHNA, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.29, 17TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS ‘E’ BLOCK, J.P.NAGAR, MYSURU-577 008.
6. SRI. M. GURUVARDHAN, AGED BOUT 29 YEARS, SON OF SRI. MAHADEVAPPA M.H., RESIDING AT NO.179, EWS SUEJ FARM ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008.
7. SMT. LAKSHMI M., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF MAHADEVA, RESIDING AT NO.5, M.G. ROAD, 4TH CROSS, SHANKARMAT ROAD, MADHUVANA, MYSURU.
8. SRI. RAVI S., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SON OF SIDDAIAH, RESIDING AT NO. 28 OF A, YELIGEHUNDI HADAJANA(P), KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.
9. SRI. MAHESH M., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, SON OF MAHADEVA, RESIDING AT NO.29. 20TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, JAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 008.
10. SRI. HEBBALAIAH @ HEMANTH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, SON OF KOTEGOWDA, RESIDENT OF KURUBA GOWDARA ROAD, MANDAKALLI POST, MYSORE TALUK, MYSURU-571 311.
PETITIONERS 1 TO 10 ARE WORKING AS DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES UNDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NO.55 OF 1, ‘SHILPASHREE BUILDING’, VIDYARANYA COMPLEX, VISHWESHWARANAGAR, MYSURU-570 008. … PETITIONERS [BY SRI.P.A.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE] AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA, TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NO.55 OF 1, “SHILPASHREE BUILDING”, VIDYARANYA COMPLEX, VISHWESHWARANAGAR, MYSURU-570 008. … RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. M.VASUDEVA RAO, SENIOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSEL-ABSENT] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2012 PASSED BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.443 OF 2011 ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.443 OF 2011 IN RESPECT OF THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR THEREIN.
* * * THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners 1 to 6 filed Original Application Nos.722 to 727 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench [‘Tribunal’ for short], seeking to quash the Order bearing F.No.C.30014/29/2013-V&L dated 9/13.05.2013 vide Annexure-A16 passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of temporary status etc., petitioner No.7 filed Original Application No.1079 of 2013, petitioner No.8 filed Original Application No.1197 of 2013 and petitioner No.9 filed Original Application No.1393 of 2013, seeking an ad-interim relief. The Tribunal considered the case as far as Original Application Nos.722 to 727 of 2013 and dismissed the same. Following the said order, the other applications were also dismissed.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they were working as daily wage employees under the Income Tax Department at different places. They were continuously engaged with the respondents since various dates commencing from May, 1997 upto November, 2010. They continued to work as daily wage employees even as on date. The Department of Personnel and Training [‘DOPT’ for short] notified the Casual Labourers [Grant of Temporary Status and Regulation] Scheme of Government of India, 1993 [‘1993 Scheme’ for short] for regularization of the casual labourers. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VERSUS UMADEVI AND OTHERS, reported in (2006)4 SCC 1, the Board on 18.11.2008 directed all the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax to implement the orders of the DOPT. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru issued an Order dated 05.08.2011 regularizing 5 contingent employees in respect of Income Tax Department of Karnataka Region. However, the said benefit was not extended to the applicants by relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS MOHAN PAL AND OTHERS reported in (2002)4 SCC 573. Thereafter, a communication dated 9/13.05.2013 was addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Vigilance), Central Board of Direct Taxes with regard to outsourcing of the services etc. Questioning the same, the instant applications were filed praying to quash the said communication and to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of temporary status along with consequential benefits etc. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the said applications. Hence, these petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are erroneous and liable to be interfered with. The Tribunal mislead itself in passing the impugned orders. What is pleaded by the learned counsel is that, the benefits be granted to the petitioners on being considered as temporary status consequent to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case, therefore the question of regularizing would not arise. However, they would be entitled to all the consequential benefits as could be granted to the employees who were considered as temporary status. Therefore, it is contended that in terms of the 1993 Scheme, the same benefit be extended to the petitioners herein also.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents is absent.
5. The Tribunal while considering the case of the petitioners came to the conclusion that the grievance of the petitioners is covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case OF UNION OF INDIA VERSUS GAGAN KUMAR, reported in (2005)6 Supreme Court Cases 70. It is also noticed that while deciding the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred to the Judgment in the case of Mohan Pal’s case. Since the same is covered by the aforesaid Judgment, the applications were dismissed.
6. On hearing learned counsels and on considering the material on record, we are of the considered view that the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. What is sought to be pleaded by the petitioners is that the 1993 Scheme be extended to them also. We have considered the said scheme. The scheme enunciates that it would come into force with effect from 01.09.1993. The benefit that could be extended to the persons who are accorded the temporary status have also been narrated therein. Admittedly, as on 01.09.1993 none of the petitioners were employed by the respondents. In fact, the earliest employment is that of petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition Nos.15404 to 412 of 2014, who was employed only in May 1997. Therefore, the said Scheme could not be extended to the petitioners. Hence, we find that the reasons recorded by the Tribunal are just and reasonable and hence, no interference is called for.
7. The same has also been clarified in terms of the impugned communication vide Annexure-A16 before the Tribunal, wherein it is narrated that subsequent to the case reported in Umadevi’s case, the exception was only in respect of the 1993 Scheme formulated and circulated by the DOPT. That the said Scheme was applicable only to casual labourers in employment of the Ministeries/Departments of the Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices, on the date of issuance of the Official Memorandum that is 10.09.1993, which shall come into force with effect from 01.09.1993. Since they were not casual workers on that date, the Scheme could not be extended to them.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Rule discharged. However, the dismissal of the writ petitions will not come in the way of the respondents to continue in the services of the petitioners, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*