Smt. Maleeha Beegum K.C. and others v. Administrator, Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratty and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **OP (CAT).No.88 OF 2014(Z)** **[AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2014 IN O.A. NO. 509/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES ON THE FILES OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.]** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**SMT.MALEEHA BEEGUM K.C.**| |---|---| ||**AGED 34 YEARS**| ||**D/O.INDEEN KANDILATH, KAVAL CHETTA HOUSE, ANDROTH.**| |**2**|**SMT.SHAHIDA BEEGUM K.**| ||**AGED 37 YEARS**| ||**D/O.HAMZAKOYA, KANDLATH HOUSE, ANDROTH.**| |**3**|**SMT.SUBAIDA M.**| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**D/O.KIDAVE U.K., MAKKET HOUSE, ANDROTH.**| |**4**|**SMT.AYSHA BEEGUM P.V.K.**| ||**AGED 35 YEARS**| ||**D/O.YAKOOB P.K., PUTHIYA PENTAMVELI KAD, ANDROTH.**| |**5**|**RAHMATH BEEGUM K.**| ||**AGED 38 YEARS**| ||**D/O.HAMZAKOYA, KUNHALI HOUSE, ANDROTH.**| |**6**|**THAHIRA.L**| ||**AGED 37 YEARS**| ||**D/O.SEETHI NALLAL, LAVANAKAL HOUSE, ANDROTH.**| |**7**|**SMT.SUBAIDA A.**| ||**AGED 37 YEARS**| ||**D/O.SAYED MOHAMMED M., ALIYATHARA HOUSE, ANDROTH.**| |**8**|**SMT.FATHIMATHU SUHURABI P.V.K**| ||**AGED 37 YEARS**| ||**D/O.MAJEED P.V.K., PENTAMBELI KAD, ANDROTH.**| |**9**|**SIYAD KHAN.L.**| O.P.(CAT)No.88 of 2014 2 - **AGED 24 YEARS S/O.KUNHIKOYA A (LATE), KANDILATH HOSUE, ANDROTH.** - **10 SMT.RAISA K. AGED 24 YEARS D/O.BADARUDHEEN MELECHETTA MECHERY, KADIYAMMADA HOUSE, ANDROTH.** - **11 SMT.HASEENA BEEGUM C.P.I. AGED 28 YEARS** - **D/O.ABDULLA M.P., CHEMMACHERY PUTHIYA ILLAM HOUSE, ANDROTH.** - **12 SMT.HABSABI P.U.P. AGED 37 YEARS** - **D/O.FAKARUDHEEEN K., CHERIYADAM, UMMATHABIYAPURA HOUSE, ANDROTH.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI - 682 555.** - **2 DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES - 682 555.** - **3 COIR SUPERVISOR COIR PRODUCTION CENTRE, ANDROTH - 682 557.** - **R1-R3 BY SRI.MANU S., SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY** - **R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(CAT)No.88 of 2014 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## _**Vinod Chandran, J.**_ The Original Petition is filed by the applicants before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of a number of Original Applications by the common order produced as Exhibit P2. The Tribunal segregated the cases to Panchayat cases and Non Panchayat cases. With respect to the Non Panchayat cases, the Tribunal directed that the administration would look in to the issue and decide on the manner in which the grievance of the employees who have been toiling for years together on casual basis can be redressed. As far as the Panchayats are concerned, it was found the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. 2. The applicants are casual labourers in the various departments of the Administration who obtained interim order for continuance when the original application was pending. The learned counsel for the applicants takes us to the initial appointment as carried out in Annexure A1. Annexure A1 list is said to have been prepared after due selection process. Later, by Annexure A3, there was a condition prescribed by the Administration in so far as continuing persons who were appointed on casual basis on the basis of the target O.P.(CAT)No.88 of 2014 4 achievement. Hence only if the individual applicants do not achieve the target could there be a termination and appointment of another casual labourer. It is also argued that in **State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors.** [AIR 1992 SC 2130] it was held that a casual employee cannot be terminated for another casual labourer. 3. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel, however, pointed out that after Annexure A3, Annexure A4 was brought in by the Tribunal. One of the casual employees had approached the Tribunal with an Original Application in the year 2008 which was disposed of in 2009 by Annexure A5. Though Annexure A5 was with respect to one casual employee, the Tribunal had issued general directions to the department as is evident from Annexure A5. Annexure A5 directed a list to be prepared, of interested persons for engagement as casual labourers in the various departments and Panchayats of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep; prepared on the basis of the order of registration in the employment exchange. This was directed to be circulated to the various departments and Panchayats so that persons from the list could be engaged in turn. It is on the basis of Annexure A5 that Annexure A4 was issued which was challenged by the applicants before the O.P.(CAT)No.88 of 2014 5 Tribunal. It is pointed out that the Tribunal has only directed framing of a scheme which is already framed as Annexure A4 for the purpose of engaging casual employees in turn so as to spread the employment opportunities. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel refers to **State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi** [(2006) 4 SCC 1] to contend that **Piara Singh** has been overruled in the said decision. 4. Another Division Bench has elaborately considered the decisions in **Piara Singh and Umadevi** (Supra) in W.A. No.1570 of 2018 and connected cases by decision dated 05.02.2020. **Umadevi** (Supra) has not overruled **Piara Singh** (Supra) _in toto_ and the Constitution Bench only interfered with the declaration made in **Piara Singh** in so far as regularization of ad hoc and temporary employees. However, it was pertinently noticed by the Division Bench of this Court that **Piara Singh** (Supra) was a case in which appointments were made temporarily to regular posts. The principles with respect to the continuance of temporary employees till a regular person is appointed, hence, has no application in the present case where the appointment itself are of casual unskilled labourers. It was also noticed that the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 has been O.P.(CAT)No.88 of 2014 6 brought out with a laudable objective of spreading the employment opportunities among the marginalized sections of society. When once a casual labourer has been appointed, he cannot claim for continuance endlessly which would result in the other eligible candidates registered in the employment exchange, also from the marginalized section of society, being deprived of atleast a casual employment for a definite period of time. In this background, the directions in Annexure A5 are perfectly in order. The Tribunal has also directed the Administration to consider the issue as per paragraph 34 which ## is extracted hereunder: _“We refrain from issuing any other directions since, in our view, it falls within the domain of the Administration. However, the Administration shall address the issue relating to all these employees who have been toiling for years together on casual basis, with utmost compassion, and give them the benefit of relaxation in age, educational qualifications etc. while making regular recruitment” ._ We do not think that any interference with the orders of the Tribunal is warranted. There can be no permanent continuance claimed by the applicants as casual labourers. Other persons who are registered with the Employment Exchange also should get a chance. We are also informed by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel that with O.P.(CAT)No.88 of 2014 7 respect to casual employees, a scheme has been framed as per the directions, applicable both for Panchayats and departments of the Administration and applicants would be considered on the basis of the same. In such circumstances, the case of the applicants shall be considered in accordance with the scheme framed for Non Panchayat cases, if they are still continuing and interested in further casual employment. The consideration shall be made within a period of three months and any of the applicants continued on the basis of interim order, shall be continued till such a consideration is made and later continued or terminated as per the terms of this scheme. Original Petition is dismissed with the above directions, but with no order on costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** **Pkk** O.P.(CAT)No.88 of 2014 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:** **EXHIBIT P1:** - **TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.509 OF 2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A NO.509/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES ON 05/03/2014 AS UPLOADED IN ITS WEBSITE.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F NO.5/14/2012 DOP (PART)(2) DATED 30/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY PANCHAYATS** - **EXHIBIT P4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F NO.5/14/2012 DOP (PART)(1)DATED 30/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY PANCHAYATS** - **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 7.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE APPLICANTS.** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2008 INVITING APPLICATION FOR CASUAL LABOURERS UNDER RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3** - **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 7.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.8.2009 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO 611/2008** - **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 9.4.2013 IN OA NO 299/2013** **//True copy//** **Sd/-** **P.S. to Judge**