Bhola Dutt Joshi V. Union of India & Ors.

CW/2554/2003

AI Insights

Bhola Dutt Joshi, a former daily wager (Waterman) employed by the Income Tax Department, filed a writ petition seeking regularization of his service as a Class IV employee, temporary status under the 1993 Scheme, and reinstatement following his termination. Joshi's employment was terminated on October 1, 2000, without following the prescribed procedures, as he claimed. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his original application, leading to the current writ petition. The High Court's decision was based on the findings that Joshi was not eligible for the 1993 Scheme benefits due to his employment status and that his claims were barred by the limitation period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819157 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India & Others Vs. Bishamber Dutt, 1997 SCC (L&S) 478
• Laws Referred To: Scheme of 1993, Rules, 1965
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHANSHU JOSHI
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Daily wager; Income Tax Department; Limitation Period; Malafide action; Regularization of Service; Reinstatement; Temporary Status; Quash termination; Contingent employee

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2554/2003 Bhola Dutt Joshi Vs. Union of India & Ors. DATE: 20 th November, 2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. MATHUR Mr. Sudhanshu Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Jain, for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for regularization of his service as Class IV employee or to confer temporary status under the Scheme of 1993. Further, to quash the termination and to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in the services of the Income Tax Department. As a matter of fact quashing of termination; resinstatement and regularization of the petitioner was prayed for in the original application filed by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects of the matter dismissed the OA by its order dated 18.12.2002. Broadly, the facts of the case are that petitioner was initially engaged as daily wager (Waterman) in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Alwar on 03.08.1992. The petitioner had performed the duties of Class IV servant; Gardner etc. According to the petitioner, he was awaiting regularization but he was not granted temporary status and his services were dispensed with on 01.10.2000. After considering the facts of the case and the contentions raised by the rival parties, the learned Tribunal held that the contention raised by the applicant that the respondents employer have acted malafidely, was futile. It was observed that there could not have been any occasion for the service of notices of the OA served on the respondents as they were not dispatched on 01.10.2000. The learned Tribunal had taken into consideration on the second contention raised by the applicant that disengagement from service was made without following procedure prescribed in the Rules, 1965. After analysing the Rules of 1965 and the fact that these rules do not apply to the Government Servants paid out of contingencies, the learned Tribunal had also observed, in para No.10 of the order, that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme 1993 because a person was entitled for the benefit of the scheme only if had been granted temporary status. The petitioner was not engaged as a casual labour, rather he was engaged as a contingent employee and was paid out of the contingency fund. The learned Tribunal has also taken into account the Scheme of 1993 wherein the applicant ought to have sought temporary status approaching the Tribunal within the period of limitation of one year from the accrual of cause of action. Therefore, the scheme of conferment of temporary status cannot be considered now, as being barred by limitation. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the case law as has been relied upon by the respondents. In the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Bishamber Dutt, 1997 SCC (L&S) 478. The learned Tribunal held that the position of the present applicant is not better than the petitioner before the Supreme Court. He had also considered other judgments cited before it wherein similar questions were raised. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the order passed by the learned Tribunal, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case so as to have the order set aside. It may also be noted that in the writ petition no prayer with regard to setting aside the order of the Tribunal has been made. But even otherwise considering the case on merits, we do not find any good reason for interference in order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. (V.K. MATHUR),J. (RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE),J. Brijesh100. “All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” BRIJESH KUMAR SHARMA JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT "