The Union Of INDIA vs. Shaik Alla Bakshu

Facts

The petitioners, Union of India and Principal Commissioner of Central GST, Hyderabad, challenged orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench. The CAT had allowed Original Applications (O.A. No. 701/2019 and others) and subsequent Review Applications (R.A. No. 16/2022 and others). The respondents are casual labourers who had worked with the petitioners between 1991 and 2006. They sought temporary status and regularization of their services. The petitioners had initially granted temporary status to some respondents based on CAT orders, but later withdrew it following a Supreme Court judgment. Other respondents who were denied temporary status also approached the CAT.

Held

The High Court set aside the direction by the Tribunal to grant temporary status to the contesting respondents, holding that such a direction was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohan Pal. The Court acknowledged that the respondents had rendered 2-3 decades of continuous service and their cases deserved consideration for regularization. However, instead of directing regularization, the Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to re-examine the cases of the contesting respondents for regularization of service. The respondents were given liberty to submit individual representations to the CBIC within four weeks, and the CBIC was directed to pass appropriate orders within six months thereafter, taking into account the respondents' long service, the Supreme Court's judgments in Umadevi and Nihal Singh, and the fact that other Commissionerates had regularized similar cases. The Court expressly left undecided the issue of whether the respondents were entitled to temporary status.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing the petitioners to grant temporary status to the contesting respondents, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohan Pal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the scheme for granting temporary status is a one-time measure and not an ongoing scheme. They argued that temporary status can only be conferred if the conditions in Clause 4 of the scheme are met, including being a casual labourer on the commencement of the scheme and rendering continuous service for at least one year. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Mohan Pal, which held that the scheme is not an ongoing one. The petitioners also argued that the CAT's order was passed without appreciating this Supreme Court judgment. Respondent's arguments: The respondents argued that they were identically placed to applicants in a previous O.A. No. 97 of 2009, which was decided in their favour. They also contended that they had rendered 2-3 decades of continuous service and their cases deserved consideration for regularization, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Nihal Singh's case and Umadevi's case. They highlighted that other Commissionerates across the country had regularized services of similarly placed casual workers.