IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6176 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP [C] No.14975 of 2005)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. … Appellant Vs. Sri Narayana Thimmappa Madivel … Respondent

O R D E R  

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel.

2. The first respondent was hired on daily wage basis, for miscellaneous work on 1.8.1998 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Kumta (Karwar District). No order of appointment was issued and he was paid from the contingency account. The respondent’s services were discontinued with effect  from  1.4.2000.  Feeling  aggrieved  the  respondent approached  the  Central Administrative Tribunal  contending that  he  ought  to  have  been  given  temporary  status.  The Tribunal  directed  the  department  to  consider  first Respondent’s request. Accordingly, the appellant, successor of  telecom  department  considered  the  case  of  first

respondent and passed an order dated 16.8.2001 rejecting the request for temporary status. The order stated that he was hired under the contingency expenditure account; that only  casual  mazdoors  were  entitled  to  conferment  of temporary status; that recruitment of casual mazdoors was stopped  with  effect  from  30.3.1985;  that  as  first respondent was not employed as casual mazdoor, he was not entitled  to  conferment  of  temporary  status.  The  first respondent  challenged  the  said  order  in  OA  No.1262/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and prayed  for  a  direction  to  the  appellant  to  grant  him temporary  status.  The  Tribunal,  by  order  dated  6.2.2002 allowed  the  said  application,  quashed  the  order  dated 16.8.2001 and directed the appellant to grant him temporary status  from  the  due  date  in  terms  of  the  scheme  dated 7.11.1989. That order was affirmed by the High Court by order dated 13.1.2005. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.  

3. The scheme dated 7.11.1989 referred to by the Tribunal is  the  Casual  Labourers  (Grant  of  Temporary  Status  and Regulation) Scheme, 1989 of the Telecom department. That was a Scheme for conferring contemplated “temporary status on  casual  labourers  who  are  currently  employed  and  have

2

rendered  continuous  service  of  at  least  one  year”. Interpreting a similar Scheme this Court had held that such a Scheme could not be considered as a continuous on going Scheme  intended  to  give  temporary  status  to  all  casual workers as and when they completed continuous service for the period prescribed in the said scheme; that such schemes were  one-time  Schemes  under  which  persons  who  were  in employment on the date of commencement of the Scheme and who had rendered the prescribed  continuous service were entitled  to  temporary  status  and  the  scheme  did  not postulate grant of temporary status to casual workers who were  subsequently  employed,  as  and  when  they  completed continuous service for the prescribed period. (See : Union of  India  vs.  Mohan  Lal –  2002  (4)  SCC  573).  The  said principle  applies  to  the  1989  scheme  of  the  telecom department  also.  Therefore  the  Tribunal  could  not  have relied on the 1989 scheme to direct conferment of temporary status to respondent who was engaged on 1.8.1998.  

4. The  Respondent  had  also  relied  on  a  departmental circular  dated  29.9.2000  in  his  application  before  the Tribunal.  In  fact  the  respondent  admitted  that  the  said circular contemplated giving temporary status to those who were engaged earlier to 1.8.1998. The said circular, in no

3

way  helps  the  respondent.  The  Circular  of  Telecom Department  dated  29.9.2000  stated  that  the  department’s letter dated 12.2.1999 granted temporary status to casual labourers eligible as on 1.8.1998, and all casual labourers not eligible for temporary status on 1.8.1998 were to be disengaged forthwith. The Circular dated 29.9.2000 does not say that those engaged on 1.8.1998 shall be given temporary status. A person engaged on 1.8.1998 cannot be considered as having become eligible for temporary status on 1.8.1998 itself. It is apparent that to become eligible for grant of temporary status, the candidate must have been in service as on 1.8.1998 and should have worked as casual labourer continuously for the period prescribed in the letter dated 12.2.1999, as on 1.8.1998. The respondent admittedly was not engaged as casual labourers prior to 1.8.1998. As the respondent  was  engaged  only  on  1.8.1998  and  was  not  in service for a continuous period of one year prior to that date, he was not entitled to grant of temporary status even under the letter dated 12.2.1999 read with circular dated 29.9.2000. This aspect has been completely lost sight of by the Tribunal and the High Court.

5. The appellant also contended that the appointment of respondent was not as a casual labourer. In view of what is

4

stated above, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the first respondent was a casual labourer or not.

6. We  accordingly  allow  the  appeal  and  set  aside  the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court and dismiss the application  filed  by  the  respondent  claiming  temporary status.  

………………………….………………………J [R. V. Raveendran]

…………………………………………………….J [J M Panchal]

New Delhi; October 17, 2008.

5