The Union Of INDIA vs. D. Ramchander

Facts

The petitioners, Union of India and its officers, challenged orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench. The CAT, in OA No. 1166/2019 and RA No. 30/2022, directed the petitioners to grant temporary status to the respondents, who were engaged as contingent workers. The petitioners argued that the CAT's order was contrary to Supreme Court judgments, particularly in the case of Union of India v. Mohan Pal, which held that the scheme for granting temporary status was a one-time measure and had specific eligibility criteria. The petitioners had previously granted temporary status to some workers but later withdrew it based on the Mohan Pal judgment. Subsequently, other workers approached the CAT seeking similar status, while some challenged the withdrawal of their status. The CAT allowed the Original Applications, directing the grant of temporary status.

Held

The High Court set aside the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal to grant temporary status to the respondents. The Court reasoned that such a direction was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohan Pal, which clearly stipulated that the scheme for granting temporary status was a one-time measure with specific eligibility criteria that the respondents did not meet. However, acknowledging that the respondents had rendered 2-3 decades of continuous service, the Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to re-examine their cases for regularization of service. This direction was based on the Supreme Court's rulings in Nihal Singh's case and Umadevi's case, and also took into account the fact that other Commissionerates had regularized the services of similarly situated casual workers. The respondents were granted liberty to submit individual representations to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs for regularization, which the Board was to consider within six months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing the petitioners to grant temporary status to the 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 CAT's order was illegal as it disregarded the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohan Pal's case. They argued that the temporary status scheme was a one-time measure and could only be granted to casual laborers meeting specific conditions as of the scheme's commencement, including continuous service for at least one year. They asserted that the respondents did not meet these criteria. The petitioners also pointed out that the CAT's decision was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's pronouncements on the subject. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that they were identically placed to other applicants in a previous case (OA No. 97 of 2009) who were granted temporary status. They contended that their cases should be considered for regularization of service, citing Supreme Court judgments in Nihal Singh's case and Umadevi's case, which suggest that employees continuing in service for decades should be considered for regularization. They also highlighted that different Commissionerates across the country had taken a different view and regularized services of similar employees.