Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court

Workers Under Social Forestry Scheme to Be Considered for Regularization, Not Direct Permanency: Bombay High Court

02 October 2024 11:21 AM

By: sayum


Bombay High Court, in the case of Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division & Ors. v. Vijaya Balbhim Mali, set aside the Industrial Court's order granting permanent status to daily wage workers engaged under the Social Forestry Scheme. Instead, the Court directed that their cases be re-evaluated for regularization under various Government Resolutions (GRs), with monetary and retirement benefits to be considered for eligible workers.

The petition was filed by the Social Forestry Division challenging the Industrial Court’s order from 2001, which granted permanent status to daily wage workers employed for tasks such as plantation and tree maintenance under the Social Forestry Scheme. The department contended that these workers were "seasonal" and not entitled to permanency because no sanctioned posts existed for their employment. The workers were hired between 1985 and 1991, and their services were continued due to status-quo orders during litigation.

Application of the Kalelkar Award: The Industrial Court had applied the Kalelkar Award to grant permanency to workers after five years of service. The petitioners argued that the Award only conferred CRTE (Converted Regular Temporary Establishment) status and not permanent government posts.

Constitutional Principles from Umadevi Judgment: The petitioners cited the Umadevi case, where the Supreme Court ruled that regularization in government service cannot be claimed without following due process. They argued that the Industrial Court exceeded its powers by granting permanency in violation of Umadevi.

Government Resolutions for Regularization: Various GRs from 1996, 2012, and 2018 provided a framework for the regularization of daily wage workers who had completed five years of service. The petitioners requested the Court to remand the case for reconsideration under these schemes.

Kalelkar Award – CRTE Status, Not Permanency: The Court clarified that the Kalelkar Award provides for the grant of CRTE status to workers completing five years of continuous service, but it does not create permanent posts in government service. "The Industrial Court erred in directly granting permanency instead of recognizing the CRTE status," observed the Court. The workers should have been considered for regularization under government schemes, not outright permanency.

Principles from Umadevi Applied: The Court emphasized that Umadevi prevents courts from granting permanency to casual workers without sanctioned posts. However, the Court acknowledged that workers could be regularized under specific government schemes.

Regularization under Government Resolutions: The Court highlighted that various GRs allow for the regularization of daily wage workers, such as those issued in 1996, 2012, and 2018. The Court directed the Social Forestry Division to consider the workers' cases for regularization under these GRs, with the condition that workers who had been terminated before 2012 would not be excluded if they met the criteria for continuous service.

Consequential Benefits: Eligible workers who met the service requirements under these schemes would be absorbed and granted monetary and retirement benefits. The Court instructed the department to deduct the compensation already paid to the workers at the time of their termination.

The Bombay High Court’s ruling reaffirms the legal principle that casual or daily wage workers cannot claim permanent government posts without sanctioned positions or adherence to a formal regularization process. Instead, the Court directed that the workers' claims be re-evaluated under applicable government schemes, aligning with the constitutional principles of equality in public employment.

Date of Decision: September 20, 2024

Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division & Ors. v. Vijaya Balbhim Mali

Similar News