Union Of INDIA vs. Sri V Nagaraju

Facts

The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, and other related authorities, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru, in O.A. No.170/00308/2017. The specific part of the CAT's order under challenge is paragraph 8, which declared that the applicants were eligible to continue in their positions as long as the post required them, and they should not be replaced by other contract employees or contractors. The respondent, Sri V. Nagaraju, was employed as a driver through a service provider, M/s. First Man Management Services (P) Ltd. The CAT's order was in relation to an original application filed by the respondent and other similarly situated individuals.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Union of India. It held that the learned counsel for the Union of India had made out a case for quashing the first three lines of paragraph 8 of the Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment. The Court reasoned that there cannot be a direction to a contractor to supply the same employees again and again who have previously worked with the department. The Court found that the judgment relied upon by the respondent was distinguishable on facts, as it did not deal with employees employed through a contractor. Similarly, another judgment relied upon by the Tribunal was also distinguishable as it did not consider the issue of contractual employees through a contractor. Therefore, the Court quashed the observations made by the CAT in the specified part of its order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in declaring that the applicants (contract employees) are eligible for continuing in their positions as long as the post requires them, and should not be replaced by any other contract employees or contractors, thereby imposing a condition on the contracting entity? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The Union of India argued that the respondent is an employee of a contractor who supplies manpower, and the department issues tenders annually for such supply. They contended that the Union of India cannot impose a condition upon the contractor to re-engage the same employees, as the contractor supplies manpower of its choice. They relied on the fact that no employee has been directly employed by the department since 2005. Respondent's Contention: The respondent relied on this Court's order in Writ Petition Nos.15404-15412/2014 and connected matters decided on 3.1.2019 (Smt. Jyothi S. and others Vs. Union of India and others).