Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Petitioner aggrieved by an order of dismissal of his Original Application No.126 of 2010 dated 06.08.2014 as also dismissal of his Review Application No.203/00088/2014 vide order dated 01.10.2014 has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs :

“i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.

ii. To kindly set aside the order dated 06.08.2014 (Annexure P/1) and 01.10.2014 (Annexure P/1-A) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

iii. To kindly direct the respondents to consider the case for grant of temporary status to the applicant as per the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993 and regularization on the post of Safaiwala.

iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition, are that, petitioner has filed original application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting, Bilaspur (in short 'CAT') pleading therein that petitioner was appointed as casual Safaiwala on 18.07.1989 in the office of Director of Mines Safety, Bilaspur through Employment Exchange. Petitioner was appointed as Safaiwala on 06.12.1989 vide memo dated 23.03.1990. He joined his service on 01.06.1990 and was paid sweeping and cleaning charge at the rate of Rs.390/- per month. Office of Mines Safety, Bilaspur received communication from the office at Dhanbad for regularization of casual labourers. In the year 2002, Deputy Director General of Mines Safety, Western Zone, Nagpur sent a letter to Director General of Mines Safety, Dhanbad on 12.10.2002 requesting for sanction of the post of Chowkidar and Safaiwala. Pending consideration for sanction of post, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 was passed, but even then, no action whatsoever was taken by the respondents to regularize the service of petitioner. Respondent No.2 wrote a letter to respondent No.4 on 03.03.2009 asking for proposal for outsourcing of the work. Petitioner made representation to respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 and also sent reminder for his regularization, but even after his long continuous service as a daily wager or part-time worker, his service was not regularized, overlooking the fact that he was appointed against regular post and prayed for following reliefs : -

“8.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.

8.2 To kindly direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the post of Safaiwala.

8.3 To kindly grant any other relief deemed fit and just by this Hon'ble Court.

8.4 To kindly award the cost of this application.

8.5 To kindly direct the non-applicants to consider the case for grant of temporary Status as per the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India 1993.”

3. Respondent submitted reply to the original application denying the pleadings made in original application. It was further pleaded that there was no regular post of Safaiwala. At the time of engagement of petitioner, he was asked to submit his willingness to work on payment of 'Safai Shulk' (cleaning charges) at the rate of Rs.390/- per month. He submitted his acceptance to the offer and he was appointed to work on Safai Shulk of Rs.390/- per month. The application submitted by the petitioner for his appointment on daily wages as casual labourer was rejected by the Mining Directorate vide letter dated 28.04.1992 and since then, petitioner was working on safai shulk basis.

4. Learned CAT considering the pleadings as also submissions made by learned counsel appearing for respective parties, dismissed the original application observing as follows :

“4. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was never appointed as a full time casual employee and he started working in 1990 on 'Safai Shulk' basis which was not even as part time casual employee. Initially he was working on 'Safai Shulk' basis at the rate of Rs.390/- per month and his application for enhancement of the charges was rejected even on 30.9.1994 (Annexure R-7). It is clearly mentioned in this communication that it is not possible to appoint him as full time or part time Safaiwala. According to the Scheme of 1993, which came into effect w.e.f. 1.9.1993, temporary status was to be confirmed to only on those casual labourers who were in employment on the date of issue of the scheme and who had rendered continuous service of one year which means they were engaged for at least for a period of 240 days. Since the applicant was never engaged as full time casual labourer, during this period, he is not entitled for grant of temporary status/regularization according to this scheme.”

5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of original application, petitioner filed review petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2014 (Annexure P/1-A).

6. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was engaged on the post of Safaiwala in the year 1991 and since then, he was continuously working. He contended that as per scheme of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 (for short 'Scheme of 1993'), petitioner is entitled for at least grant of temporary status. He also contended that in view of dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umadevi (supra), petitioner is entitled for regularization because he was appointed through valid recruitment proceeding. Before appointing the petitioner, respondents have called the names from Employment Exchange, conducted interview and thereafter, appointed the petitioner. Petitioner was working as casual Safaiwala and he was not informed that he has been engaged as part-time Safaiwala. It is further contended that representations dated 11.02.1991 and 05.07.1994 were filed by the petitioner only with an object to provide full time work as he was already giving full time duty. Above representations cannot be interpreted differently. He submits that respondents be directed to regularize the petitioner on the post of Safaiwala. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajbinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (1988) Supp SCC 428, State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and Others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118, Umadevi (supra) and Hargur Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292.

7. Per contra, Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was engaged as casual full time labourer is not correct. Though, names have been called from Employment Exchange for engaging Safaiwala and petitioner was appointed, but he was appointed as part-time Safaiwala on 'Safai Shulk' basis for consolidated charge of Rs.390/- per month. He contended that before he started the work, undertaking was given by the petitioner. After the date of his joining, he was continuously working on safai shulk basis and therefore, he made representation on 28.10.1991 to respondent No.4 stating that he was working as part-time Safaiwala, getting charges of Rs.390/- per month and he may be permitted to work on daily wage basis. The undertaking given by petitioner as also representation are submitted along with reply stating that as the petitioner is only a part-time worker, he is not entitled for relief as sought for by him for regularization of his service.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the documents placed along with the pleadings.

9. Perusal of documents placed along with reply submitted by respondents before this Court would go to show that petitioner agreed to work of cleaning and sweeping on the basis of cleaning charges at the rate of Rs.390/- per month. The said acceptance under the signature of petitioner is dated 25.05.1990. After lapse of about one year, petitioner submitted representation before respondent No.4 mentioning therein that he is working as part-time Safaiwala and he may be permitted to work on daily wage basis / daily rate basis.

10. Pleadings of the respondents supported by the documents are not controverted by way of filing rejoinder by the petitioner. From the documents placed on record by respondents along with reply to the writ petition, it is appearing that petitioner prior to joining on the post was aware that he was being engaged for cleaning and sweeping on the basis of cleaning charges at the rate of Rs.390/- per month and also gave undertaking in writing. He was not full time daily wage employee, and therefore, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware at the time of engagement / appointment, that he was appointed as part-time worker, is not sustainable. Hence, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled.

11. So far as relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition in paragraph-10(iii) for grant of temporary status as per Scheme of 1993 is concerned, clause 4 of Scheme of 1993 being relevant, same is extracted herein-below :-

“4. Temporary Status - (i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week).

(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Group 'D' posts.

(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer would not involve and change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circle on the basis of availability of work.

(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not, however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group 'D' posts.”

12. The expression 'casual labourers' coupled with the expression 'who are in employment' in Clause-4 of the Scheme of 1993 would indicate that they are full time casual labourers who have been employed for the prescribed period on payment of wages. Admittedly, petitioner was not engaged as full time worker on daily wages or monthly wages, but he was engaged as part-time worker on consolidated charges of cleaning, which is specifically mentioned as 'Safai Shulk' (cleaning charges). The nature of job, on which petitioner is engaged, therefore, cannot be equated with the nature of job of daily wage labourers / daily rated workers.

13. The decisions upon which petitioner has placed reliance, in the opinion of this Court, are distinguishable on facts.

14. The case of Rajbinder Singh (supra) is on the issue of continuation of adhoc teachers till the regular appointments by the Public Service Commission.

15. In case of Piara Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that adhoc / temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc / temporary employee and they can be replaced only by regularly selected employee.

16. The case of Hargur Pratap Singh (supra) is also on the issue of adhoc arrangement and adhoc employment of petitioner therein was protected till regular incumbents are appointed.

17. As we have discussed in preceding paragraphs, petitioner was not full time casual labourer, but he was engaged for cleaning purpose as Safaiwala on consolidated sweeping charges and not on wages, and therefore, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by learned CAT.

18. The writ petition being devoid of any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No costs.