Wp/9074/2002 Of P.hari Prasad v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUAND 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 ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondents in notconferring the temporary status to the petitioners in spite of theorder No.162/97-98 dated 31-12-1997 of the Chief Commissionerof Income Tax, New Delhi, as illegal and contrary to law andconsequently, direct the respondents to confer temporary status tothe petitioners as it has conferred temporary status to I. VenkataSivaprasad, who is a junior to the petitioner, and award allconsequential benefits to the petitioner on par with thecounterparts. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.9074 of 2002 filed O.A.No.1138 of2000 and the petitioners in W.P.No.9075 of 2002 filed O.A.No.1357of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (forshort, ‘the Tribunal’) praying to direct the respondents to granttemporary status to the applicants and pay full monthly wages tothem without giving breaks in the service by declaring that theaction of the respondents in not granting them temporary statusand 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 theyare in service as on the date of filing of O.As. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed ascontingent daily wage labours on 06-06-1994 to work in the officeof the 2[nd] respondent. It is the case of petitioners that they havebeen in continuous service for more than six years and that theyare attending their regular duties. But the scheme, which was,formulated viz., the Casual Labourers (Grant of temporary Statusand Regularisation) Scheme vide DOP&Ts OM No.51016/22/90-Estt(C), dated 10-09-1993, provides that those who were inemployment as on the date of issuance of that OfficeMemorandum i.e., on 10-09-1993 and who have been engaged fora period of not less than 240 days (206 days in case of officesobserving 5 day week) are to be conferred Temporary Status. 5. It is also made clear that the Office Memorandum by way ofclarification dated 12-07-1994 clarified that those who have beenengaged as casual labourers on part time basis and other thanthrough Employment Exchange cannot be bestowed withTemporary Status. Therefore, unless it is shown by the petitionersthat they have been engaged for a period of not less than 240days, they cannot be confirmed temporary status. Except sayingthat they have been working from 1984 onwards, nothing has beenplaced on record by the petitioners to show that they wereengaged as Daily Labourers and they have been worked for aperiod of not less than 240 days. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record, theTribunal has rightly held that they are not entitled to be consideredfor giving temporary status. Therefore, the impugned common order needs no interference by this Court and the writ petitions aredevoid of merits. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall beno order as to costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these WritPetitions shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS March 06, 2014 PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUAND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS PN WRIT PETITION No.9074 and 9075 of 2002 March 06, 2014