Daya Ram V. The Union of India and Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1 and 2

CW/6464/2020

AI Insights

Daya Ram, a part-time casual laborer employed in the Income Tax Office, filed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, which denied his request to be recognized as a full-time casual laborer. Initially engaged as a part-time Safaiwala/Sweeper in 1990, Daya Ram argued that he performed duties akin to those of full-time employees but was not compensated or recognized as such. The Tribunal had accepted his claim for prorated wages but rejected the request for full-time status due to a 28-year delay in filing the claim. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of procedural basis for granting full-time status to part-time casual laborers and the absence of any discriminatory practices against the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802633 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL BHANDARI
• Assessee Lawyers: JAI KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Discrimination; Wages; Casual labour; Full time; Part time

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6464/2020 Daya Ram S/o Shri Taga Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Inside Suraj Pol, Harijan Basti Jalore - 343001, At Present Employed As Part Time Casual Daily Worker (MTS) in the Office of ITO Ward -I, and II, Income Tax Office Shivaji Nagar, Jalore. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, Through Secretary Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, C R Building, Statute Circle, B D Road, Jaipur. 3. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Paota C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1 and 2, Income Tax Office Shivaji Nagar, Jalore. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 05/02/2021 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.1.20 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the original application preferred by the petitioner to the extent of his claim for treating him full time casual labour, has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was initially engaged as casual part time Safaiwala/Sweeper on 1.11.90 in the office of Income Tax Officer, (2 of 4) [CW-6464/2020] Ward I & II, Jalore. According to the petitioner, though continuing as part time casual labour, he was made to discharge the duties as full time regular employee. 3. Aggrieved by the denial of due wages and not treating him full time casual labour, the petitioner preferred an original application before the Tribunal, seeking directions to the respondents to make him payment of wages @ 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of time scale of pay of the Group D staff plus Dearness Allowances as per the rate prescribed vide order dated 30.12.15, prorate to his working hours with all consequential benefits. That apart, the petitioner sought directions to the respondents to consider his case for making him full time casual labour and grant his due benefits. The prayer made by the petitioner regarding prorate payment of wages in the time scale of pay of Group D staff has been accepted by the Tribunal, however, the prayer for treating him full time casual labour, has been rejected. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for consideration of his case for treating him full time casual labour on the ground of delay of 28 years. Learned counsel urged that the prayer was made by the petitioner for treating him full time casual labour prospectively and thus, the same could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is working for five hours a day and engaged in the work of regular nature and therefore, the action of the respondents in not considering his case for treating him full time casual labour is absolutely unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that other part time casual labours have been treated (3 of 4) [CW-6464/2020] full time casual labour but the relief is denied to the petitioner because he did not enter into litigation earlier and thus, the action of the respondents in denying the similar benefit to him is avowedly arbitrary and discriminatory. 5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the prayer for treating the petitioner full time casual labour made after 28 years apparently, suffers from inordinate, unexplained delay & laches and therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. It is submitted that there is no provision, rule or regulation permitting making of a part time casual labour as full time casual labour and thus, the claim of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is true that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal after inordinate delay. But, if the petitioner has any legitimate claim for treating him full time casual labour, such relief being based on recurring cause of action, could not have been rejected on the ground of inordinate delay moreso when, the relief was claimed prospectively. 8. It is noticed that the petitioner claimed parity qua the similarly situated persons, who were extended the benefit of full time casual labours by the respondents but, there exists no foundation of facts in this regard in the original application or in the writ petition preferred. The petitioner’s claim is not based on any rules, regulations, administrative orders, whereunder the respondents had given assurance to treat the part time casual labour as full time casual labour. In this view of the matter, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. (4 of 4) [CW-6464/2020] 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if similarly situated persons have been extended such benefit, it will be open for the petitioner to agitate his grievance by way representation to the respondents while giving complete details in this regard. Needless to say that the representation if any made by the petitioner, shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J 40-Aditya/- "