The Union Of INDIA vs. B. Rama Krishna

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, in OA No. 700/2019 and RA No. 31/2022, directed the petitioners to grant temporary status to the respondents, who were casual labourers employed between 1991 and 2006. The petitioners had previously granted temporary status to some casual workers based on a CAT order and a High Court dismissal of their writ petition. However, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) instructed them to withdraw this status, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Subsequently, some respondents who were denied temporary status, and others whose status was withdrawn, approached the CAT. The CAT allowed their applications, directing the grant of temporary status, which the petitioners are now challenging.

Held

The High Court set aside the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) 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's case, which clearly stated that the scheme for granting temporary status was a one-time measure and subject to specific eligibility criteria that the respondents did not meet. However, the Court acknowledged that the respondents had rendered 2-3 decades of continuous service. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Nihal Singh's case and Umadevi's case, the Court held that these long-serving employees deserved consideration for regularization. The Court noted the inconsistency in how different Commissionerates across the country had handled similar cases, with many regularizing services of casual workers. Therefore, the Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to re-examine the case of the respondents for regularization of their services, taking into account their long tenure and the precedent set by other Commissionerates. 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. The Court expressly set aside the CAT's direction for temporary status.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing the petitioners to grant temporary status to the respondents, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Mohan Pal's case, which held that the scheme for temporary status is a one-time measure and requires fulfillment of specific conditions? 2. Whether the respondents, having not been granted temporary status as of the date of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mohan Pal's case, are entitled to such status? 3. Whether the respondents, who have rendered 2-3 decades of continuous service, are entitled to regularization of their services in light of the Supreme Court's judgments in Nihal Singh's case and Umadevi's case? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the CAT's direction to grant temporary status was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Mohan Pal's case, which established strict criteria for granting such status and limited it to a one-time measure. They contended that the respondents did not meet these criteria. They also argued that while the CAT had previously allowed similar claims contrary to Mohan Pal's case, this precedent should not be followed. They further argued that the respondents' cases should not be considered for regularization as they were not granted temporary status as per the Supreme Court's pronouncements. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that they have rendered long and continuous service, warranting regularization. They relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Nihal Singh's case and Umadevi's case, which mandate consideration for regularization of employees with long service. They also pointed out that other Commissionerates across the country have regularized services of similarly placed casual workers, indicating an inconsistent approach by the Hyderabad Commissionerate.