Case Title:
USHABEN JOSHI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Date Of Order:
2nd August 2024
Bench:
Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Parties:
Appellants- USHABEN JOSHI
Respondents- UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Subject:
The present appeal challenges the ruling rendered on April 5, 2018, by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which rejected the Special Civil Application No. 5115 of 2018 filed by the appellant. By doing so, the High Court upheld the previous ruling of the CAT rendered on June 29, 2016. In her Original Application No. 50 of 2012, the CAT dismissed the appellant's request for a direction mandating the respondents to regularise her employment in a Group 'D' job.
Facts
In February 1986, the appellant in question was employed as a 'water lady' at the premises Superintendent of Post Offices and K.M. Vaghela was appointed as a safai karamchari at the same office in 1991. The appellant and Smt. Vaghela were both employed as temporary laborers pursuant to a contract.
Having served continuously for over sixteen years in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, a request was put forward by the appellant regarding a temporary status in the group D cadre. The said appeal was based upon the order passed by the apex court in the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India.
Nevertheless, the departmental authority denied her request on January 31, 2003, prompting her to submit Original Application No. 530 of 2003 to the Central Administrative Tribunal in order to secure regular employment in the Group 'D' position and the corresponding benefits.
In compliance with a 1992 circular that delineated a procedure for converting part-time workers who worked for five hours or more into legal employees, the CAT directed the authorities to assess her transition to a full-time position within three months. Nevertheless, her subsequent appeal was denied on December 29, 2004, as she was only working four hours per day and receiving payment as a contingent part-time employee. Consequently, she was ineligible for benefits under the program.
She submitted Civil Application No. 5115 of 2018 to the High Court of Gujarat, requesting the establishment of a regularized salary, minimum wage scale, and benefits that are competitive with those of Class IV workers, after being unsuccessful in contesting this ruling in the High Court and before the CAT.
The High Court denied her plea and declared that she is ineligible for the remedy requested since she failed to substantiate her full-time employment status. The court cited the rulings set down in the instances of Union of India and Others v. A.S. Pillai and Others, as well as Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi. Given their dissatisfaction, the appellant has now sought the intervention of this Court via this appeal with special authorization.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant's counsel strongly argued that the appellant had diligently performed the duties of a water lady for the respondent-Department for a period exceeding 30 years without any interruptions.
Nevertheless, the Department had officially authorized the employment of K.M. Vaghela, an employee who had entered the office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kutch Division, Bhuj, in 1991, six years after the appellant.
Vaghela had previously fulfilled analogous obligations as a contingency worker. The counsel contended that the appellant had been subjected to unjust discrimination in contrast to Smt. Vaghela, who had been officially employed, despite the fact that both had been employed as contingency workers.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that there was no discrimination, as the appellant did not meet the criteria specified in the Recruitment Rules and did not fall under the classification of Casual Labour.
The legal representative also contended that a straightforward interpretation of the CAT's ruling of July 28, 2015, in the case of Vaghela indicated that the Tribunal had not mandated her regularization, but had merely instructed the respondents to investigate her case.
The DPC's decision to limit Vaghela's services was made independently and without the influence of the CAT leadership. The counsel stressed that the Department had unfairly discriminated against two employees in the same situation, and the appellant was eligible for the suggested cure because of her 30 years of employment.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court at the onset highlighted the core issue in this particular matter, i.e. whether the respondents had engaged in discrimination against two workers who were in identical circumstances.
The court analyzed the arguments of both the side and stated that the respondents defended their decision to regularize the services of Smt. K.M. Vaghela by asserting that it was in accordance with a directive issued by the CAT, whereas the appellant lacked any such directive in her favour.
Upon careful examination of the documents, it became clear that the CAT, in its ruling dated July 28, 2015, had simply instructed the respondent-Department to thoroughly evaluate Smt. Vaghela's application for the position of MTS. The CAT did not need the formalization of her services.
Through a meticulous analysis of the Minutes of the DPC meeting held on October 18, 2016, regarding the direct selection of the MTS cadre for the academic year 2016-17, it was determined that Smt. Vaghela was deemed qualified and chosen as MTS without any interference from the CAT's directive.
Hence, the respondent-Department made an autonomous choice to regularize Smt. Vaghela's services and designate her as MTS. The records provided evidence to support the appellant's assertion that she had been subjected to discrimination in contrast to Smt. Vaghela, who was accorded the advantage of regularization.
The respondents failed to provide any evidence in their affidavit, subsequent to the decision issued on February 27th, 2024, to indicate that the type of responsibilities or the number of hours worked by Smt. Vaghela differed from those of the appealing party.
Therefore, the respondents' argument that the appellant, who worked as a contingency worker at a rate of four hours per day, was not qualified for confirmation in service lacked any reliable evidence.
Based on the appellant's uninterrupted service of over thirty years as a contingency water woman in the Department, and taking into account that an employee who was placed in a similar position but was hired six years after the appellant had been confirmed in service and appointed as MTS, the appellant was eligible for the same benefits.
The existing circulars governing the Posts and Telegraphs Department specified that a temporary employee who has made continuous employment in the Department for over 240 days in the previous 12 months would be eligible for regularisation according to the applicable rules and regulations.
Consequently, the apex court came to the conclusion that the challenged orders were found unconstitutional as per the aforementioned argumentation. Furthermore, in an effort to guarantee that the appellant and Smt. Vaghela were treated equally, the court instructed the respondents to issue an order of regularization and appointment as MTS in the appellant's favor, with the same conditions as those that were administered to her.
From the date of Smt. Vaghela's appointment as MTS, this regularization order will take effect, together with all subsequent advantages. The complying with this order was required to be completed within a period of three months from the date of the order. Hence, the appeal was granted.
