B.V.Krishna Rao, V. Chief Commissioner of Incom Tax,

WP/9075/2002

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by petitioners seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the respondents' action of not conferring temporary status to the petitioners as illegal and contrary to law. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to temporary status as per an earlier order and compared their situation to that of a junior employee who was granted such status. The respondents contended that the petitioners did not meet the necessary criteria for temporary status as they had not been employed for the required minimum period of 240 days. The Central Administrative Tribunal had previously ruled on similar grounds, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695240 (HC-NOT SPECIFIED)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Casual Labourers (Grant of temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, DOP&Ts OM No.51016/22/90- Estt(C), dated 10-09-1993, Office Memorandum dated 12-07-1994
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Artificial Breaks; Casual Labourers; Continuous service; Temporary Status; Writ of Mandamus

Judgement Text

"THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No.9074 and 9075 of 2002 COMMON ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu) These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conferring the temporary status to the petitioners in spite of the order No.162/97-98 dated 31-12-1997 of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, as illegal and contrary to law and consequently, direct the respondents to confer temporary status to the petitioners as it has conferred temporary status to I. Venkata Sivaprasad, who is a junior to the petitioner, and award all consequential benefits to the petitioner on par with the counterparts. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.9074 of 2002 filed O.A.No.1138 of 2000 and the petitioners in W.P.No.9075 of 2002 filed O.A.No.1357 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) praying to direct the respondents to grant temporary status to the applicants and pay full monthly wages to them without giving breaks in the service by declaring that the action of the respondents in not granting them temporary status and giving artificial breaks in their service as arbitrary and illegal. The said O.As., were disposed of by way of common order directing the respondents not to disengage the applicants if they are in service as on the date of filing of O.As. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as contingent daily wage labours on 06-06-1994 to work in the office of the 2nd respondent. It is the case of petitioners that they have been in continuous service for more than six years and that they are attending their regular duties. But the scheme, which was, formulated viz., the Casual Labourers (Grant of temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme vide DOP&Ts OM No.51016/22/90- Estt(C), dated 10-09-1993, provides that those who were in employment as on the date of issuance of that Office Memorandum i.e., on 10-09-1993 and who have been engaged for a period of not less than 240 days (206 days in case of offices observing 5 day week) are to be conferred Temporary Status. 5. It is also made clear that the Office Memorandum by way of clarification dated 12-07-1994 clarified that those who have been engaged as casual labourers on part time basis and other than through Employment Exchange cannot be bestowed with Temporary Status. Therefore, unless it is shown by the petitioners that they have been engaged for a period of not less than 240 days, they cannot be confirmed temporary status. Except saying that they have been working from 1984 onwards, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioners to show that they were engaged as Daily Labourers and they have been worked for a period of not less than 240 days. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record, the Tribunal has rightly held that they are not entitled to be considered for giving temporary status. Therefore, the impugned common order needs no interference by this Court and the writ petitions are devoid of merits. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS March 06, 2014 PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No.9074 and 9075 of 2002 March 06, 2014 PN "