THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No.2560 OF 2005
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The unsuccessful petitioners in W.P.No.1856 of 2005 are the appellants.
under:
The facts that are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as The appellants claim to have been engaged as Casual Labourers in the erstwhile Telecom Department of Government of India between 1992 and 1996. In the year 1999, the Government evolved a scheme for conferment of temporary status on casual labourers and then to regularise their services on expiry of three years of temporary status. The appellants filed O.A.No.471 of 1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for the relief in terms of the scheme. The O.A. was disposed of on 10.08.1998. It was observed that the appellants did not get the eligibility to be conferred with temporary status, however, a direction was issued to continue them on the existing scheme.
The appellants filed O.A.No.601 of 2003 before the Tribunal complaining that though they have become eligible to be conferred the temporary status in terms of revised scheme, the benefit was not extended to them. The O.A. was disposed of on 31.12.2003 taking the view that the appellants were working as part-time casual labourers at the relevant point of time and directing that a) the appellants shall be converted from part time casual labourers to full time casual labourers b) they shall be conferred temporary status and c) their services have to be regularised on completion of three years of temporary status.
Alleging that the respondents did not comply with the directions issued in the O.A., the appellants filed a contempt case. That, however, was closed by taking on record the fact that the respondents passed an order, dated 29.06.2004.
On account of the incorporation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), the service matters pertaining to it were within the purview of the High Court. Hence, the appellants filed W.P.No.1856 of 2005. According to them, once the order in O.A.No.601 of 2003 has become final, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of regularisation of the services to the appellants. Respondents, on the other hand, reiterated their stand in the communication, dated 29.06.2004. It was mentioned that the appellants were not in service as on 01.01.1998 and that their subsequent engagement was only as Contract Labourers. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order, dated 31.08.2005. Hence, this appeal.
Heard Sri V. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, and Ms. P. Sarada, learned counsel for the respondents.
For the past two decades, the appellants are pursuing the remedies before one forum or the other. In this regard, the appellants sought temporary status by filing O.A.No.471 of 2004. Though they were not successful in getting the benefit of conferment of temporary status, the order passed therein helped them in continuing in service. While they were continuing in service, the Government virtually renewed the scheme, which was introduced in 1999 providing for conferment of temporary status on such of the casual employees who have completed 240 days of service. The cut off date is stipulated as 01.08.1998.
There is no denial of the fact that the appellants are continuing in service at least from the year 1998. Though there is some uncertainty in this behalf, the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.601 of 2003 virtually puts an end to this. The Tribunal recognized the fact that the appellants are continuing in service, may be, as part-time causal labourers, and that they are otherwise entitled to temporary status.
If the respondents were of the view that the order does not reflect the correct facts, they could have pursued the remedies vis-à-vis the said order. Once it has become final, the respondents cannot contradict the facts mentioned therein.
In its order in O.A.No.601 of 2003, the Tribunal specifically directed that the appellants shall be first converted into full time casual employees and then conferred with temporary status, and thereafter be regularised in services. None of the steps were taken. Certain basic facts are sought to be projected through the impugned order. The respondents cannot be permitted to plead those facts, which run contrary to the order passed in O.A.No.601 of 2003. The plea of the appellants that the employees similarly situated as they in the other districts of the State of the Andhra Pradesh have been conferred with the temporary status and they were regularised in service, remains unrebutted. In fact, that is admitted in the counter affidavit itself. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to be extended the benefit, may be with effect from different dates.
Therefore, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 29.06.2004. We direct that the appellants shall be deemed to have been converted from part time casual labourers to full time casual labourers and then conferred with temporary status, from 30.06.2004. They shall also be deemed to have been regularised with effect from 01.07.2007. However, they shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary on account of such measures. They shall be paid salary as regular employees with effect from 01.11.2014.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in the writ appeal shall stand disposed of.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.
09.10.2014 KH