UNION OF INDIA versus GAGAN KUMAR

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 27-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
f' 
v. 
GAGAN KUMAR 
JULY 27, 2005 
[ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] . 
B 
Casual labourers (Grant of Te!Jlporary Status and Regularization) 
Scheme, 1993-Clause 4-Nature of scheme-Held: It is not an ongoing 
scheme-For grant of "temporary" status, the casual labourer should be in C 
employment as__ on_ the date of commencement of the Scheme and also should 
have rendered a continuous service of at least one year. 
Respondent, a casual labourer filed O.A. claiming grant of temporary 
status under Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and 
Regularization) Scheme, 1993 on the ground that he had completed 240 days D 
in the year 1998. Tribunal allowed O.A. holding that it is an ongoing scheme 
and as and when casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 
206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get 
"temporary" status. Union of India challenged the same by filing Writ Petition 
before High Court, which was dismissed without assigning any reason for 
dismissal. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, grievance of Union of India was that the Tribunal 
was not justified in its view and the High Court by a cryptic non-reasoned 
order has dismissed the writ petition. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The Clause 4 of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status 
and Regularization) Scheme, 1993 states that the conferment of"temporary" 
status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on 
F 
the date of commencement of the Scheme. Clause 4 of the Scheme does not 
envisage it as an ongoing scheme. In order to acquire "temporary" status, G 
the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of 
commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered a continuous 
service of at least one year which means that he should have been engaged 
for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices 
825 
I-I 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A observing 5 days a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to 
be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving "temporary" 
status to all the casual workers, as and when they complete one year's 
continuous service. [827-G; 828-A, BJ 
Union of India and Anr. v. Mohan Lal and Ors., [2002] 4- SCC 573, 
B relied on. 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1026 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.2002 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 4427 of2002. 
Beno Bensigar, Ms. Vimla Sinha and B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellant. 
Jitendra Mohan Sharma for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. The Union of India calls in question legality of 
the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the 
writ petition filed by it. By the impugn&d order the High Court summarily 
dismissed the writ petition and in effect affirmed the view expressed by the 
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short 'the 
E Tribunal'), though it did not specifically refer to it. 
Factual background needs to be stated in brief: 
Respondent filed an original application before the Tribunal claiming 
that he was engaged as a casual labourer for quite sometime and has been 
F 
disengaged by verbal order on 31.12.2000. According to him, he had completed 
the requisite period of service for grant of temporary status. According to him 
his case is clearly covered by the Scheme circulated by Department of 
Personnel & Training (in short "DOPT") in the Government oflndia, Ministry 
of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions. It was claimed that the department had 
G circulated by O.M. NO. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10.9.1993 a scheme for grant 
of temporary status and regularization of casual workers. The scheme is called 
Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of 
Government of India, 1993. The said scheme came into force with effect from 
1.9.1993. The scheme envisaged grant of temporary status to casual labourer 
who had worked at least 240 days in a year (206 days in the case of offices 
H observing 5 days a week). According to the respondent he had completed the 
U.0.1. v. GAGAN KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.] 
827 
requisite period in the year 1998 and, therefore, was eligible for grant of A 
temporary status. Present appellant took the stand before the Tribunal that 
the scheme was not on-going scheme but was applicable to those casual 
lab

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