Granting temporary status to all eligible casual laborers: Agenda Item 47th NC(JCM) Meeting

Reply of the Official Side:

As per the Scheme of 1993, those casual labourers who were on the rolls of the Ministry on the cut-off date and had completed 240 days (205 days in case of offices observing five day week), as on the cut-off date were eligible for grant of temporary status and subsequent regularization under the Scheme of 1993. Furthermore, as per DoPT’s O.M. No. 40011/6/2002-Estt(C) dated 06.06.2002 based on the Mohan Pal judgement, it was clarified that the 1993 Scheme for casual labours was a one-time measure. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also directed that those who have been erroneously given Temporary Status till the date of the judgement i.e. 29.04.2002, shall not be stripped of the same and will be deemed to have been covered under the Scheme of 1993. Nonetheless, the Scheme of 1993 issued by DoPT is not applicable to M/o Railways, D/o Telecommunications and D/o Posts since they have their own schemes similar to the above Scheme. Therefore, the cases of casual labourers working in the above Departments are not under the purview of DoPT.

Furthermore, the orders issued vide OM, dated 11.12.2006 are not related to the Scheme of 1993 and should not be linked with each other in any case. These instructions which were issued subsequent to the judgement of the Constitution Bench in the Secretary, State of Kanataka Vs Uma Devi case are not limited to casual labourers. The operative part of the above judgement is the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a onetime measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitment are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.

It is also stated that in the O.M. dated 11.12.2006, all the above provisions are specified clearly leaving no space for my ambiguity. There is no mention of granting of any kind of temporary status in the above OM or my mention of any revised cut-off date. Since the above OM is quite clear, there seems to be no need lo issue any clarifications.

This item may be treated as closed.

***

6.4.15 Item No.31/19/NC-47 – Litigation cases on service matters.