Central Administrative Tribunal
M RAMANAYYA vs M/o Defence on 28 December 2018
OA/20/659/2012Spall **CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD**
OA/020/659/2012
Dated: 28/12/2018
Between
<table border="1"><thead><tr><th>S.No.</th><th>Name</th><th>Father's name</th><th>Age</th><th>Designation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>M. Ramanayya</td><td>Gopalaswamy</td><td>43</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>A. Pydi Raju</td><td>Pydayya</td><td>46</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>K. Shankara Rao</td><td>Sanyasi Rao</td><td>42</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>B. Marayya</td><td>Mahalakshmi</td><td>47</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>K.Nagabhushanarao</td><td>Appanna</td><td>49</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>K. Sadasivarao</td><td>Appalanaidu</td><td>51</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>K. Trimurthulu</td><td>Subramanyam</td><td>57</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>8.</td><td>P. Demudu</td><td>Apparao</td><td>54</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>9.</td><td>D. Veeraju</td><td>Chinnapentayya</td><td>45</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>10.</td><td>A. Suban</td><td>Appa Rao</td><td>49</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>11.</td><td>G. Rama Rao</td><td>Demudu</td><td>50</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>12.</td><td>Ch Ramulu</td><td>Mahalakshmi</td><td>50</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>13.</td><td>O.Sadhurao</td><td>Appilli</td><td>51</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>14.</td><td>B. Ramana</td><td>Gangunaidu</td><td>44</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>15.</td><td>S. Chinna Rao</td><td>Simhachalam</td><td>50</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>16.</td><td>N. Narayanarao</td><td>Suri</td><td>45</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>17.</td><td>S. Sankar</td><td>Ramulu</td><td>51</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>18.</td><td>R. Raju</td><td>Ramudu</td><td>50</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>19.</td><td>P. Raja Rao</td><td>Potha Raju</td><td>51</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>20.</td><td>G. satyanaryana</td><td>Naidu</td><td>51</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>21.</td><td>M. Adinarayana</td><td>Pentayya</td><td>43</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>S. Venkatarao</td><td>Chinnaiah</td><td>52</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>23.</td><td>E. Ramadandu</td><td>Sanyasappadu</td><td>49</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>24.</td><td>P. Rajarao</td><td>Potharaju</td><td>48</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>25.</td><td>V. Ramarao</td><td>Sriramulu</td><td>45</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>26.</td><td>N. Demudu</td><td>Sannibabu</td><td>51</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>S. Subba Rao</td><td>Apparao</td><td>48</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>28.</td><td>G. Rama Rao</td><td>Appanna</td><td>41</td><td>USL</td></tr><tr><td>29.</td><td>J.V. Suribabu</td><td>Suryanarayana</td><td>56</td><td>USL</td></tr></tbody></table>
OA/20/659/2012
The logo of the Central Administrative Tribunal, featuring a circular emblem with a wheel in the center, surrounded by the text 'Central Administrative Tribunal' and 'सत्यमेव जयते' at the bottom.
All the applicants are working as Casual Unskilled Labourer (USL)
in the Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, R/o Visakhapatnam.
...Applicants
AND
1. 1. The Union of India rep. by its
Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Central Secretariat,
New Delhi.
2. 2. The Chief of the Naval Staff,
Naval Headquarters,
New Delhi – 110 011.
3. 3. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.
4. 4. The Admiral Superintendent,
Naval Dockyard,
Visakhapatnam.
... Respondents
<table><tbody><tr><td>Counsel for the Applicants</td><td>:</td><td>Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar</td></tr><tr><td>Counsel for the Respondents</td><td>:</td><td>Mr. M. Brahma Reddy,<br/>Sr. PC to CG</td></tr></tbody></table>
OA/20/659/2012
**CORAM :**
**Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman**
**Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member**
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORAL ORDER**
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman)
215 casual labourers including the applicants herein, were engaged by the Naval Dockyard in the year 1982-83. Out of them, 54 persons were conferred the temporary status through proceedings dated 11.01.2002. However, the status was withdrawn through order dated 21.5.2002. OA No.723/2002 was filed before this Tribunal challenging the orders of withdrawal. The O.A. was allowed and the order of withdrawal was set aside on the ground that it was not preceded by a show cause notice. Permission was accorded to the respondents to take steps in that regard.
2. Show cause notices were issued to the applicants and other persons, whose temporary status was sought to be withdrawn. On consideration of the representations submitted by them, the orders of rejection were passed on 31.07.2002.
3. OA No.973/2002 was filed challenging the order of rejection. The O.A. was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants therein. The respondents filed Writ Petition No.2135/2003 before the High Court of A.P. The Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the cases of the casual labour in accordance with the extant instructions and not on the basis of the Circular of
OA/20/659/2012
the year 1953. In compliance with the directions issued by the High Court, the respondents have undertaken the verification of the service records and on finding that 16 casual labourers have put in service of more than 240 days, they were conferred temporary status.
4. The applicants, who were denied the conferment of temporary status, filed OA No.1489/2003. The same was dismissed on 9.9.2004. Aggrieved by that, they filed Writ Petition No.2765/2005. The Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to constitute a Board to verify the various facts pleaded by the applicants. Permission was also accorded to the applicants to supply such material as is useful to them. Accordingly, a Board was constituted and through its report dated 28.2.2006, the Board took the view that the applicants did not work for a period of 240 days and accordingly they are not entitled to be conferred the temporary status.
5. It is stated that the applicants went on making representations with a request to furnish copies of the findings of the Board and other relevant documents and that it was only in the year 2009, that such information was furnished to them. A detailed representation was submitted on 31.10.2010 pointing out various alleged deficiencies in the proceedings of the Board. Through an order dated 01.06.2011, the respondents rejected their representation. The same is challenged in this O.A.
6. The applicants contend that the Board constituted in compliance of the orders of the High Court, did not examine the record properly and it has simply drawn inferences. It is also stated that the Provisions of Section 25(B)
*[Handwritten signature]*
OA/20/659/2012The seal of the Central Administrative Tribunal is circular. It features a central emblem of a sun with rays, surrounded by the text 'Central Administrative Tribunal' in a circular border. Below the emblem, there is a banner with the motto 'सत्यमेव जयते' (Satyameva Jayate).
in the Industrial Disputes Act were not taken into account in the process of reckoning the continuous service of 240 days. Other grounds are also urged.
7. The respondents filed counter affidavit justifying the impugned order. It is stated that the issue was scrutinised in great detail from time to time as and when directions were issued by the Courts and that in the impugned order every contention of the applicants was discussed, with reference to the relevant record and order passed from time to time.
8. We heard Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M. Venkata Swamy representing Sri M. Brahma Reddy, learned Senior Panel Counsel.
9. In a way, this is the 4<sup>th</sup> round of litigation in the context of the prosecution of the remedies by the applicant for being conferred with the temporary status. Their engagement was in the year 1982-83. 20 years after the initial engagement, temporary status was conferred in the year 2002. Within four months, the status was withdrawn but without issuing any show cause notices. In compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal in OA No. 723/2002, show cause notices were issued and the status was withdrawn through order dated 31.7.2002. Another round of litigation ensued and it resulted in conferment of temporary status on 16 casual labourers. The applicants were left out. O.A. No.1489/2003 filed by them was dismissed on 9.9.2004 and in the Writ Petition No.2765/2005, the High Court directed the constitution of a Board.
A handwritten signature in dark ink, appearing to be 'M.S.' or similar initials.
OA/20/659/2012
10. After examining the entire issue in detail, the Board passed an order dated 28.2.2006 rejecting the case of the applicants. That however is not challenged anywhere. On the other hand, the applicants got almost the entire record of the Board, by filing applications, under Right to Information Act and filed a detailed representation dated 31.10.2010. It is in response to it that the impugned order, which runs into eight closely typed pages, is passed. Obviously, keeping in view the amount of litigation that has ensued thus far, the concerned authority dealt with each and every paragraph of the representation in a more detailed manner than in a judgement in a Civil case. The applicants are not able to demonstrate as to which portion of the impugned order is contrary to record or violative of any relevant provision of law.
11. It was almost as a last resort that the High Court directed constitution of the Board. In compliance with the same, the Board was constituted and it had undertaken the verification of the entire record and a specific finding was recorded to that effect that the applicants did not work for 240 days. Much argument is advanced in relation to the words employed by the Board namely, 'though the applicants did not work for more than 240 days'. Even here, the applicants are not able to demonstrate that they worked for 240 days. The very fact that the respondents have conferred temporary status on 16 persons on finding that they have worked for more than 240 days, discloses the objectivity. It is not as if that the applicants and all other casual labourers were engaged at a time and were working in the same pattern and for the same length of time.
OA/20/659/2012
12. In the field of judicial review, the Court or Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority and scrutinise each and every fact as though it is a Original Suit or a departmental inquiry. Once the claim of the applicants was dealt with by the concerned authority in accordance with the relevant provision of law and the exercise was repeated on several occasions in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal and the High Court, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from legal or factual infirmity. We do not find any merit in the O.A. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
13. It is represented that the applicants are being engaged as and when there exists work, in compliance with the directions issued by the High Court. We make it clear that if occasion arises for engagement of any casual labourers in the organization, the same shall be done in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
प्रमाणित प्रत CERTIFIED TRUE COPY केस संख्या CASE NUMBER OA 659/2012 निर्णय का तारीख DATE OF JUDGEMENT 28-12-2018 प्रत तैयार किया गया तिथि COPY MADE READY ON 29-1-2019
Section Officer / Court Officer केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण Central Administrative Tribunal हैदराबाद न्यायपीठ/Hyderabad Bench