http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2940-2941 of 2007

PETITIONER: Controller of Defence Accounts,Dehradun and Ors

RESPONDENT: Dhani Ram & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/07/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  2940-2941                OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 23142-43 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by A  learned Single Judge of the Uttranchal High Court in Writ  Petition No.939 (SB) of 2002 dated 16.4.2003 and the order on  the review petition dated 28.8. 2004.

3.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4.      Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court  claiming that they should be considered for regularization and  should be paid minimum of pay scale.  The respondents were  engaged as casual labourers in the office of the Controller of  the Defence Accounts during the period 1989-95.  The nature  of the engagement was casual/seasonal depending upon the  availability of the work.  

5.      A scheme called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary  Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India,  1993 (in short the ’Scheme’) was issued by the Government of  India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension, Department of  Personnel and Training.  The Scheme came into force with  effect from 1.9.1993.       6.      On 6.6.2002, OM No.40011/6/2002/Estt. was issued by  the Government of India reiterating that the scheme relating to  temporary status was not on-going scheme and the temporary  status can be conferred under the scheme only subject to  fulfillment of the conditions as stipulated in clause 4 of the  scheme.  The respondents were disengaged as there was no  work available for them.  They filed the writ petition taking the  stand that they were entitled to be continued in service as they  were working up to 3.7.2002.

7.      The writ petition was resisted by the respondents.  In the  writ petition taking the stand that the writ petitioners were not  covered by the scheme of regularization as they did not fulfil  the prescribed criteria, they were not entitled to grant of  temporary status.  The High Court, however, disposed of the  writ petitions holding that they were to be considered for  regularization.  A review petition was filed taking the stand

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

that in view of this Court’s judgment in Union of India and  Anr. v. Mohan Pal and Ors.  (2002 (4) SCC 573) the writ- petitioners were not entitled to any relief. The High Court,  however, dismissed the review petition.                      

8.      In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant  submitted that the High Court’s decision is clearly contrary to  the decision of this Court in Mohan Pal’s case (supra) and,  therefore, unsustainable.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  supported the orders of the High Court.

10.     Paragraph       4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows:

"Temporary Status - Temporary status would  be conferred on all casual labourers who are in  employment on the date of issue of this O.M.  and have rendered a continuous service of at  least one year, which means that they must  have been engaged for a period of at least  240(206 days in the cases of offices observing  5 days a week)."

11.     The relevant portion of paragraph 3 of the scheme reads  as follows:

"This scheme is applicable to casual  labourers in employment of the  Ministries/Department of Government of India  and their attached and subordinate officer, on  the date of issue of these order."

12.     Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment  of "temporary" status is to be given to the casual labourers  who were in employment as on the date of commencement of  the Scheme. High Court seems to have taken the view that  this 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. Clearly clause 4 of the Scheme does not  envisage it as an ongoing scheme. In order to acquire  "temporary" status, 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 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. Of course, it is up to the Union  Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found  necessary that the casual labourers are to be given  "temporary" status and later they are to be absorbed in Group  "D" posts.

13.    This position as highlighted in Mohan Pal’s case (supra)  was reiterated in  Union of India v. Gagan Kumar (JT 2005 (6)  SC 410) and Director General, Doordarshan, Mandi House,  New Delhi and Ors.  v. Manas Dey and Ors. (2005 (13) SCC  437).

14.     Above being the position, the High Court’s orders are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

clearly unsustainable, and are set aside. The appeals are  allowed with no order as to costs.