Sunday, July 14, 2013

Bom OA Nos.592, 593, 594 & 595 of 2012 on 01-04-2013

Bom OA Nos.592, 593, 594 & 595 of 2012 on 01-04-2013


ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS  NOS:-592, 593, 594 & 595 of 2012

Dated this   Monday the 1st  day of April, 2013


Shri Keshav Ganpat Mhase,
Temporary Status Labour,
Residing at: Village Kirawali,
Taluka Karjat, Dist-Raigad,
Maharashtra            ...Applicant in OA No.592/2012

Shri Ramesh N.Kamble,
Temporary Status Labour,
Residing at: Sakhinabai Chawl,
Room No.2, Dharavi,
Mumbai 400 017                ...Applicant in OA No.593/2012

Shri Prabhakar R.Panigrahi,
Temporary Status Labour,
Residing at: Ramabai Colony,
Char Chawl, Ghatkopar (East),
Mumbai 400075          ...Applicant in OA No.594/2012

Shri Ashok Rajram Salunke,
Temporary Status Labour,
Residing at: Sai Residency,
Plot No.15, Sector 9,
Room No.402, Kamote, Panvel,
Navi Mumbai 410 209          ...Applicant in OA No.595/2012

(By Advocate Shri P.P.George)


1. Union of India,
Through the Director General,
Operational Logistics,
General Staff Branch,
Integrated Headquarters,
Ministry of Defence (Army),
South Block, New Delhi – 110 011

2. The Commandant,
Embarkation Headquarters,
R. Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400 001            ....Respondents

(By Advocate S/Shri V.S.Masurkar with S.G.Pillai)


Per : Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A)

These four cases filed around September, 2012, are heard together as they have the same issue and same respondent office.

2. Heard both the counsel. On the questions of MA Nos.906, 907, 908, 909 of 2012, these are for condoning of delay in filing these OAs.

3. The matrix of OA No.592/2012 is used hereunder:
The OA is filed on 18.09.2012. The applicant was initially appointed as daily wage labour on 1986 and was granted temporary status on 03.01.1995. Thereafter, we find from Annexure A-12 that the applicant along with 114 other similarly placed daily wage labour, approached this bench in OA No.638/1993 with a prayer to consider the claims of the applicant for being absorbed in service on regular basis. A directions was given to absorb them as and when vacancy arises and regularize them according to the rules.

4. It is the claim of the applicant that some of the applicants of the said OA were actually regularized by the respondents as on 01.04.2004. However, the applicant did not approach this bench  in 2004 when the cause for  action  arose  for  the  first  time. Thereafter, the DoPT had issued the OM dated 11.12.2006 to advise all the departments to regularize the casual labours as per the availabilities of the vacancy and it is the claim of the applicant that the respondent department did not act in pursuance to the OM of the DoPT. But the applicant himself failed to raise the issue and  approach this bench even in 2006. The learned counsel mentions that the case of the applicant was getting frequently referred to in the Darbars and the Welfare Committee Meetings regularly held by the department but his case has not yet been considered. It is the claim that no representation was being accepted in the office of the respondents. It is difficult to believe this claim and also difficult to believe that the applicant did not know to approach this bench. He had already approached this bench in 1993 and received a judgment in 1997, so we have to conclude that he knows the existence of forum of CAT.

5. We have also perused Annexure A-8, which is the representation of the applicant dated 30.07.2012 to the respondents requesting to give regularization at an early date. The applicant is present in court today and the learned counsel after consulting him gives a specific answer that the wording of “early date” may be taken to mean “any prospective early date”. It therefore, appears that in Annexure A-8 representation he is not asking for regularization with effect from 01.04.2004 but with effect from some early future date. However, in the main OA his prayer is for grant of regularization with effect from 01.04.2004 as was done to some similarly situated employees.

6. Thus, as far as the OAs' are concerned and the MAs Nos.906, 907, 908, 909 of 2012 for condonation of delay is concerned, we find the delay of 8 years cannot be condoned with any justification in view of the fact the applicant has seen some of his colleagues getting the benefit of judgment in OA No.638/1993 in which he has also a party.

7. Learned counsel has cited the judgment in respect of K.C.Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 6 SCC 721 and M.R.Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 5 SCC 628, but the facts mentioned in those judgments do not apply in the present matter. In view of this, the MAs for condonation of delay are rejected.

8. Accordingly, the OAs also fail and are therefore, dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant at the advice of the applicant, who is present in the court, makes a submission that the respondents may be directed to consider the representation Annexure A-8 in view of the fact that new vacancies have now become available in the office of the respondents as seen from Annexure MP A-3 which is an invitation for application to be made before 08.03.2013. This advertisement shows that there are vacancies available for the office of the respondents. Though it is not the part of the prayer,  there is no bar for the respondents to consider sympathetically the representations of the applicant at Annexure A-8 against their existing vacancies.

9. With these observations the OAs No.592, 593, 594 & 595 of 2012 are dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Smt.Chameli Majumdar)            (Smt.Leena Mehendale)
  Member (J) Member (A)  


No comments:

Post a Comment