Casual And Daily Wage Workers Do Not Possess Right To Seek Regularization: Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad single bench of Justice Om Prakash held that casual labourers or daily wage workers do not possess the right to seek regularization. The bench held that the Workman's claim of serving as an 'Outsider Officiating Sweeper' for a significant duration remained unsubstantiated. The certificate provided by the department alone did not suffice...
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad single bench of Justice Om Prakash held that casual labourers or daily wage workers do not possess the right to seek regularization.
The bench held that the Workman's claim of serving as an 'Outsider Officiating Sweeper' for a significant duration remained unsubstantiated. The certificate provided by the department alone did not suffice to substantiate the Workman case for regularization. Further, it held that even if the authenticity of the aforementioned certificate was assumed, it merely indicated the Workman's engagement on a daily wage or part-time basis. Consequently, the bench held that the Workman's part-time employment within the department did not entitle him to seek regularization within the same department.
Brief Facts:
The Workman was employed as an 'Outsider Officiating Sweeper' for the office of Senior Postmaster, Allahabad Head Post Office (“Management”). The Management issued a character certificate of the Workman which stated 8 hours as his daily work time. The issue arose when one of the juniors of the Workman, who worked in Group D, was regularized but the Workman was not considered for regularization.
Feeling aggrieved, the Workman filed an application to the Director General of Posts, New Delhi for regularization of his services as a Group-D sweeper. He also filed an application against the Management for reducing his pay at the rate of Rs. 100/- with effect from 01.01.2012. However, no action was taken. Subsequently, the Workman filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (“Tribunal”).
The Workman contended that the Management failed to issue a show cause notice before reducing his salary. Further, since a 2-year junior was regularized as against the Workman, it was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian constitution. It was also contended that he had completed the statutory employment period and was eligible for regularization.
The Management contended that the Workman was engaged as a part-time worker to perform sweeping and cleaning work in the Head Post Office compound. However, he was never engaged continuously. Further, it was contended that the Workman improperly filled up the vacant position of a sweeper as no advertisement or notice was issued for filling up the post on which he was adjusted. Therefore, his adjustment was terminated as soon as a show-cause notice was issued. The Management relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], where it was held that back door entrants or irregular appointees have no right to hold a post.
Observations by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal observed that the junior who got regularized was not a 'Safai Karmi' and was appointed against a regular post of Group-D by the Competent Authority. On the other hand, the Workman was engaged for occasional requirements of sweeping and cleaning the compound.
It was further noted that the Workman was never appointed on a regular basis by the Management. His contention of regularization was based on the grounds of alleged appointment as an 'Outsider Officiating Sweeper'. However, the Workman failed to work for 240 days continuously in a year and also failed to produce any appointment letter or pay slip to discharge the burden of proof.
The Tribunal relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs Umadevi (3) and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1], where it was held that regularization and absorption of daily-wage, temporary, contractual or ad-hoc employees dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment. Further reliance was placed on Ashwani Kumar and Others vs State of Bihar and Others [1996 Supp. (10) SCR 120], where it was held that when the initial entry of the Workman is unauthorized, the question of regularizing the services does not arise.
It was observed that the Workman was not appointed to any sanctioned post, considering the lack of advertisements or notice for filling the vacancy. Therefore, it was held that the Workman could not seek regularization as a casual labour or a daily wager.
Further, the Workman also failed to discharge the burden of proving that he was working officially as an 'Outsider Officiating Sweeper' for a substantial period. A certificate issued by the Management confirming that the Workman was working at a daily wage basis was not considered sufficient for seeking regularization.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the Workman.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar vs Union of India and Others
Case No.: Original Application No. 548 of 2013
Advocate for the Applicant: Shri Shiv Mangal Prajapati and Sri Prabhav Srivastava
Advocate for the Respondents: Shri Bablu Singh and Shri P.K. Mishra