Original Application Nos. 117 and 322 of 2012. Case: 1. Gaya Prasad and Ors., 2. Ram Mani Patel and Ors. Vs 1. Union of India, through Secretary and Ors., [Alongwith Original Application Nos. 123, 228 and 327 of 2012], 2. Union of India, through Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General Income Tax (Inv) Aayakar Bhawan, [Alongwith Original Application No. 430 of 2012]. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application Nos. 117 and 322 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri A.P. Shrivastava, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, Advocate in Original Application Nos. 117, 123, 327 of 2012, Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate in Original Application No. 228 of 2012 and Shri A.P. Khare, Advocate in Original Application Nos. 322 and 430 of 2012 |
| Judges | Dhirendra Mishra, Member (J) and G.P. Singhal, Member (A) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 142, 16, 226, 32 |
| Judgement Date | October 11, 2013 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Dhirendra Mishra, Member (J), (Jabalpur Bench)
1. Since the question of law and issues involved in these Original Applications (for brevity OAs) are similar, all the matters were heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common order. For the purposes of this order reference is being made to the facts and documents pleaded in OA No. 117/2012, unless not specifically referred to any other Original Application.
2. Through these Original Applications the applicants, who were engaged for casual nature of work by the respondents from different dates as mentioned in their respective Original Applications are praying for directions to the respondents to examine the possibility of formulating a new policy for regularizing their services against large number of posts, which were lying vacant by further directing the respondents to revive the posts, which have been surrendered and abolished with an object to deny the valid claim of the applicants. The applicants have impugned demi-official letter dated 04.07.2011 (Annexure A-1) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, addressed to all Cadre Controlling Chief Commissioners of Income Tax (for brevity CCIT) and Director General of Income Tax on the subject of appointment of casual workers in the department, as also the order dated 25.07.2011 (Annexure A-12), whereby the Principal Chief Control of Accounts in reference to aforementioned CBDTs DO dated 4.7.2011 addressed to all Cadre Controlling CCITs and DGIT, has observed that as per provisions of GFR 178 the field offices should outsource the services like data entry/typing/cleaning/security on contract, without employing contingent workers individually for the purpose, and that the GFR 178 also does not permit outsource of individual persons, and, accordingly the authority concerned have been directed to follow GFR 178 and CBDT DO dated 04.07.2011.
3. On examination of the pleadings in these OAs and the documents annexed therewith we find that number of applicants have joint together and prayed for the reliefs as detailed above. However, no appointment order of the individual applicants have been filed to demonstrate the nature, terms and conditions of their appointment, except that the applicants have given the details of their educational qualification, date of appointment, the work for which they were engaged and the place, without any supporting documents.
4. The respondents in their counter reply have categorically stated that the applicants have not submitted their individual details i.e. the advertisement of post against which they have been appointed; whether their names have been sponsored by the employment exchange; the appointment letters through which they were appointed, against duly sanctioned vacant post, etc., and in the absence of such details they are not in a position to effectively reply the averments in the OAs. Despite specific objection to that effect, the applicants have not furnished the above details.
5. The respondents in their counter reply have also brought to our notice that similarly placed employees had filed Original Application No. 746 of 2011 (Laxmi Prasad Dubey & 56 others Vs. Union of India and others) challenging the very impugned demi official letter of the CBDT dated 4.7.2011, and also for similar direction to the respondents to examine the possibility of regularising the services or granting temporary status and the said OA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 26.09.2012, and the Writ Petition No. 22083/2012 against the above order has been further dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 11.02.2013.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
7. Also perused the order dated 26.09.2012 passed in the matters of Laxmi Prasad Dubey (supra) as also the order of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 22083/2012 filed by said Laxmi Prasad Dubey & others against our aforesaid order dated 26.09.2012.
8. We find that aforementioned OA No. 746/2011 was also filed for quashing of demi official letter dated 4.7.2011 addressed by the CBDT and consequential order dated 25.07.2011 passed in pursuance of the above demi official letter dated 4.7.2011. The applicants therein had also prayed for directing the respondents to examine the possibility of regularising their services or for granting them temporary status. The Original Application No. 746/2011 was dismissed by this Tribunal on 26.9.2012 with an observation that the impugned decision is a policy decision which is in consonance with GFR 178 and same is not open to challenge and that too at the instance of the applicants only on...
To continue reading
Request your trial