BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. versus SRI DEO KUMAR RAI @ DEO KUMAR RAY

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 882 · Decided: 14-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 882
882
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.
v.
SRI DEO KUMAR RAI @ DEO KUMAR RAY
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7707-7708 of 2021)
DECEMBER 14, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications,
1989 – Regularization – Casual workers – Conferment of temporary
status – Committee constituted for verification of service records
found that respondent did not fulfil the eligibility criteria –
Challenged by respondent – Petitions dismissed by Central
Administrative Tribunal – Order set aside by High Court, matter
remanded back for fresh adjudication – Tribunal ordered
respondent’s regularization – Writ petition filed by appellant,
dismissed by High Court – Review Petition – Dismissed – On appeal,
held: Conclusion drawn by the High Court and the Tribunal
favouring the respondent is contrary to the factual finding recorded
by the Committee – Committee Report disclosed that the respondent
failed to produce records in original to support his claim –
Certificates were issued by unauthorised persons and the
authenticity of such documents were not established – Respondent
was required to have been engaged for 240 days in a given calendar
year however, he had served for a maximum of 38 days in a calendar
year and was ineligible – Further, period of engagement spreading
across several calendar years (and not one year as mandated under
the Scheme) could not have been accepted by treating the gaps in
service over those years, as artificial breaks – Impugned judgments
and orders are quashed – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 –
s.22(3).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In order to secure the benefit of the Casual
Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization)
Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989, it was
necessary for the respondent to establish that he satisfied the
eligibility criteria prescribed under the Scheme and had worked
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
883
for at least 240 days in 12 months. The Committee clearly
recorded that the respondent “has completed maximum 38 days
in 12 calendar months during 1.1.1995 to 31.12.1995 and as such
the applicant is not entitled to grant of temporary status as per the
provisions of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications,
1989.” Although this categorical finding of the Committee was
noted both by the Tribunal as also by the High Court,
regularization was surprisingly ordered for the respondent. For
the contrary finding, the Tribunal did not make any inquiry or
record any evidence, in terms of the remand order dated 19.3.2013
of the High Court in the earlier round. The conclusion is drawn
without any material foundation. The conclusion drawn by the
High Court and by the Tribunal favouring the respondent is
contrary to the factual finding recorded by the Committee on
29.8.2005. The Committee Report also discloses that the
Applicant had failed to produce records in original, to support
his claim. The Committee further noted that certificates were
issued by unauthorised persons and the authenticity of
such documents have not been established. [Paras 16, 18 and
19][888-F-G; 889-D-G]
1.2 Clause 5(i) of the 1989 Scheme prescribed the
requirements for conferring temporary status to casual workers.
The clause makes it clear that the Applicant was required to have
been engaged for 240 days in a given calendar year. The
Committee’s findings showed that the respondent had served
for a maximum of 38 days in a calendar year and was ineligible.
The Tribunal in its order (25.8.2015) relied upon the judgement
in Uma Devi to consider the service period during 1989 to 1998,
to compute 240 days of engagement. However, this manner of
considering eligibility does not gain support from the ratio in Uma
Devi. The ratio of the said judgment was concerned with irregular
appointments, which issue however is not very relevant in this
matter. Furthermore, the ratio does not lay down a ten-year
service yardstick for determining the eligibility of casual workers,
as has been understood by the Tribunal. As such, the period of
engagement spreading across several calendar years (and not
one year as mandated under the Scheme) could not have been
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. SRI DEO KUMAR RAI @
DEO KUMAR RAY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
accepte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.