Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a casual worker who challenged his termination from service after the winding up of the Central Organisation for Operations and Information System (COIS), where he had been engaged as a Choukidar on January 13, 1986, and was conferred temporary status on January 8, 1967, as stated in the appellant's contention. A junior, Rohtas Kumar, engaged on February 28, 1986, and conferred temporary status on February 23, 1987, was allegedly regularised after the scheme was wound up, leading the appellant to claim discrimination and entitlement to regularisation or posting elsewhere. The Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, had dismissed the appellant's original application OA No.1201/87 on May 17, 1990, prompting the special leave appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that as a senior casual worker with temporary status, his termination while the junior was retained was arbitrary. The respondents, through an affidavit by the Divisional Personnel Officer of Northern Railway, stated that COIS was a separate and distinct entity from Northern Railways, and the appellant's services ended on September 10, 1987, due to the winding up of COIS. Twenty casual labourers were directed to be absorbed at different places, and seven casual labourers, including Rohtas Kumar, were spared as per requirement and offered appointment by the construction department. After the winding up, applications were invited from willing staff for appointment in the Centre for Railway Information System (CRIS), but the appellant never applied, and therefore was not considered. The Supreme Court reasoned that since the appellant was given an opportunity to apply for absorption but had not availed of it, the question of discrimination did not arise, nor did the question of appointment of the junior and denial to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Temporary Status Casual Worker - Absorption and Discrimination - No specific statute cited - The appellant, a casual worker conferred temporary status, was terminated when COIS wound up, while a junior was retained because he applied for absorption and was spared as per requirement. The appellant was given an opportunity to apply for absorption in CRIS but did not avail it, and therefore no question of discrimination or denial of appointment of the junior arises. Held that the appeal is dismissed and no costs are awarded. (No paragraph references available)
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of casual worker with temporary status while retaining a junior constituted arbitrary discrimination and whether the appellant was entitled to regularisation or absorption after winding up of COIS
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No costs. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant was given an opportunity to apply for absorption but did not avail of it, no question of discrimination or denial of appointment of the junior arises.
Law Points
- Casual worker with temporary status has no right to absorption when organization wound up
- retention of junior only after applying for absorption and being spared as per requirement does not amount to discrimination
- opportunity given but not availed negates claim of arbitrariness
- winding up of separate entity ends services
