Babu Lal Mali & Others and Jitendra Kumar Sharma and Narendra Kumar Saini and Kamal Kumar Soni and Dilip Singh Nathawat and Ram Kishore Meena and Chiranjiv Thapa and Bhanu Prakash Sain and Mahendra Singh Meena and Amit Sharma and Ram Narain and Shimbhu Singh and Mohd Hanif and Trilok Singh and Satish Kumar Nagar and Sanjay Sharma and Vinod Kumar Solanki and Ramji Lal and Kailash Meena and Pawan Kumar Rawal V. Union of India

CW/6480/2010

AI Insights

The case involves a series of writ petitions filed by employees of the Income Tax Department, who were engaged through private placement agencies, challenging their potential removal from service. These employees, primarily working as Data Entry Operators and other support roles, argued that their long-term employment and the nature of their work warranted recognition as permanent positions. The Central Administrative Tribunal had previously ruled in their favor, preventing their removal. The Union of India appealed this decision, which was upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan, referencing a similar case and emphasizing the arbitrary nature of replacing long-term casual employees with contract laborers for cost-cutting purposes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803079 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6360/2010, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1924/2011
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R B MATHUR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA; ASHOK GAUR
• Keywords: Casual Labourers; Central Administrative Tribunal; Computer operator; Data Entry Operator; Income Tax Department; Placement Agencies; Permanent Nature

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 1. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9714/2013 Babu Lal Mali & Others v. Union of India & Others 2. CW 4856/2010 Jitendra Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Others 3. CW 5339/2010 Narendra Kumar Saini v. Union of India & Others 4. CW 5340/2010 Kamal Kumar Soni v. Union of India & Others 5. CW 5442/2010 Dilip Singh Nathawat v. Union of India & Others 6. CW 5443/2010 Ram Kishore Meena v. Union of India & Others 7. CW 6087/2010 Chiranjiv Thapa v. Union of India & Others 8. CW 6357/2010 Bhanu Prakash Sain v. Union of India & Others 9. CW 6358/2010 Mahendra Singh Meena v. Union of India & Others 10. CW 6359/2010 Amit Sharma v. Union of India & Others 11. CW 6476/2010 Ram Narain v. Union of India & Others 12. CW 6477/2010 Shimbhu Singh v. Union of India & Others 13. CW 6478/2010 Mohd Hanif v. Union of India & Others 14. CW 6479/2010 Trilok Singh v. Union of India & Others 2 15. CW 6480/2010 Satish Kumar Nagar v. Union of India & Others 16. CW 6547/2010 Sanjay Sharma v. Union of India & Others 17. CW 6717/2010 Vinod Kumar Solanki v. Union of India & Others 18. CW 16658/2011 Ramji Lal v. UOI (Revenue Ministry of Fin) & Another 19. CW 16867/2012 Kailash Meena & Others v. Union of India & Others 20. CW 9713/2013 Pawan Kumar Rawal & Others v. Union of India & Others Date of order 17.7.2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Ranka Mr. C.B. Sharma Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Sr. Counsel, with Mr. Gaurav Sharma } Mr. Ashok Gaur, Sr. Counsel, with } Mr. Ajay Choudhary } Ms. Naina Saraf } for petitioners Mr. R.B. Mathur with Mr. Nikhil Simlote, for respondents 1. A bunch of writ petitions have been filed assailing order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20.12.2012. 2. These employees were working in the Income Tax Department, and mostly were working in the capacity of Data Entry 3 Operator/Computer Operator, Class IV Employees/Watchman or Office Boy. Their primary grievance was that they have been engaged by private agencies, who are normally called placement agencies, for performing the work which is being undertaken by them for last many years, and these are the indirect methods adopted by the respondents for engaging employees from different channels, and as they are working for a long time, the nature of work discharged by each of them is also of perennial in nature and ordinarily they could be replaced only by employees of permanent nature. 3. The learned Tribunal after taking note of the rival contentions of the parties finally disposed of a batch of OAs, and prior thereto a matter of such like nature came before the Tribunal in OA No.27/2010 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 18.3.2010 and that travelled to this court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6360/2010 and an interim order was passed by this court on 17.5.2010, in compliance thereof they were allowed to continue and relying on the interim order of this court, the OAs filed later on before the Tribunal, also came to be disposed of in the light of earlier order of the Tribunal dated 18.3.2010. 4. It has been informed that bunch of writ petitions against order of the Tribunal came to be preferred by Union of India before the main seat at Jodhpur and those writ petitions, after hearing rival contentions of the parties came to be decided vide judgment dated 19.3.2015, and 4 we consider it appropriate to quote the operative part of the judgment hereunder :- “True it is, the Government of India under the office memorandum dated 23.11.2005 desired to curtail unwarranted expenses and further emphasised not to regularise casual labourers, but that cannot be a reason to terminate the original applicants from service who are working on casual basis only and not claiming for regularisation of their service. The continuance of such employees shall in no case put any extra economic burden upon the employer. The persons who shall be employed through service providers shall also be entitled for same remuneration and the service provider too shall claim its commission, therefore, that will in no manner satisfy desire of the petitioner respondent to curtail expenses. On the other hand, removal of the respondent original applicants who are in service of the petitioners from several years shall be quite arbitrary as they will be thrown out of employment without any wrong on their part. The position would have been different if the petitioner would have been going to have regular recruitment against the posts occupied by the original applicants but that is not the case of the petitioner. The petitioner want to remove the original applicants from service just to have labour through contractor with a view to reduce expenditure but that object, as already stated, cannot be served as the applicants too are working on casual basis only. So far as Rule 178 of the General Finance Rules is concerned, suffice to mention that the mode of utilising services through outsourcing is always available to the petitioners but merely on that count services of the casual labourers already working are not required to be dispensed with. In our considered opinion, the Central Administrative Tribunal, thus, rightly directed the petitioner respondent not to remove the respondent original applicants from service by another substituted employees under any guise or cover. The petitions for writ hence are dismissed. It is made clear that the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal shall be applicable only for those employees who were working with the petitioner on casual basis on the date of disposal of the original applications. No order to costs.” 5 5. It is informed that majority of such employees/writ petitioners, pursuant to the interim order of this court, are presently working. 6. Counsel for the petitioners jointly submit that since the question raised has been examined and decided by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1924/2011, the present bunch of writ petitions, in the light thereof, may also be disposed of, and the petitioners may also be made entitled for the same relief as granted by the Division Bench, mutatis mutandis, while dismissing the bunch of writ petitions filed by Union of India. 7. Counsel for the respondents, as regards the merits of the matter is concerned, submits that dispute is the same and making recruitment through placement agency or through other agency may not be a distinctive factor among the nature of employment offered. He, however, submits that the matter is still in process of whether to take this matter further in SLP before Hon'ble the Supreme Court or not. But he is not sure as to what final decision has been taken in this regard so far. 8. Since the question has already been examined and decided by a Coordinate Division Bench of this court, lis is no more res integra to be examined and keeping in view the order of the Division Bench referred to we consider it appropriate to dispose of the instant bunch of writ petitions accordingly, and all these writ petitioners are entitled to the 6 same relief, mutatis mutandis, as granted by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 19.3.2015. 9. No order as to costs. (J.K. Ranka) J. (Ajay Rastogi) J. db 110-129 [All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya PS "