Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting temporary status to the respondent, Sri Deo Kumar Rai, under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989. The respondent, a casual worker, claimed temporary status based on alleged continuous service from 1989 to 1998. A Committee constituted to verify records found that the respondent had worked only 4 days in 1989, 29 days in 1992, 17 days in 1993, 38 days in 1994, 38 days in 1995, 34 days in 1996, 37 days in 1997, and 17 days in 1998, well below the required 240 days in 12 calendar months. The Committee also noted that the photocopies of certificates relied upon by the respondent were not issued by any BSNL officer. The respondent challenged the Committee's decision before the High Court, which transferred the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal initially dismissed the application, but the High Court remanded the case for fresh adjudication with a direction to record evidence under Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. On remand, the Tribunal, without recording any evidence, passed an order in favor of the respondent, cryptically observing that he was made to work with artificial breaks from 1989 to 1998. The High Court upheld this order, erroneously stating that the authenticity of the documents was not disputed. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal and High Court misread the Committee's report, which clearly negated the respondent's claim. The Court held that the respondent failed to establish the eligibility criteria of 240 days in 12 months, and the orders granting temporary status were based on no evidence. The Court set aside the impugned orders and dismissed the respondent's application for temporary status.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Status - Eligibility Criteria - Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989 - The respondent claimed temporary status under the 1989 Scheme, which requires continuous service of at least one year with 240 days of engagement. The Committee found he worked only 38 days in 12 months. The Tribunal and High Court erroneously granted relief by aggregating service over 10 years and relying on unverified photocopies, without recording evidence as directed on remand. Held that the respondent failed to establish the eligibility criteria, and the orders granting temporary status are unsustainable (Paras 4-6, 16-18). B) Administrative Law - Tribunal's Procedure - Recording of Evidence - Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The High Court in its remand order directed the Tribunal to record evidence to resolve factual disputes. The Tribunal failed to do so and instead relied on the Committee's report, which actually negated the respondent's claim. Held that the Tribunal's order was cryptic and without any evidentiary basis, warranting interference (Paras 8-10, 16). C) Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Photocopies - The respondent produced photocopies of certificates, but the Department disputed their authenticity. The Committee found they were not issued by BSNL officers. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court examined the authenticity or recorded evidence. Held that the burden was on the respondent to prove eligibility, and unverified photocopies cannot override official records (Paras 5-6, 14, 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent satisfied the eligibility criteria of having worked for at least 240 days in 12 calendar months under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989, and whether the Tribunal and High Court could grant relief without recording evidence as directed by the High Court in remand.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the Gauhati High Court dated 31.5.2018 and 4.6.2019, and the Tribunal's order dated 25.8.2015, and dismissed the respondent's application for temporary status under the 1989 Scheme.
Law Points
- Eligibility for temporary status under Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme
- 1989 requires 240 days of continuous service in 12 calendar months
- Burden of proof on claimant to establish eligibility
- Tribunal must record evidence when factual controversy exists
- Photocopies without authentication cannot override official records
- Committee's factual finding cannot be overturned without contrary evidence
