CAT Condemns Ruthless Exploitation of Sweeper Engaged 30 Years Ago for Rs 25

Srinagar, Nov 29: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Srinagar has held the government’s refusal to regularise the services of a man who was engaged as sweeper-cum-chowkidar in a school 30 years ago as “sheer exploitation of his helplessness”.

“The respondent’s refusal to regularise the services at this juncture after having extracted blood from his veins for 30 years is certainly not justified,” a bench of M S Latif, Member (J), and Prashant Kumar, Member (A), said. “It would amount to sheer exploitation of his helplessness by treating him like torn apparel after ruthless use, which should not be the conduct of the respondents (authorities) in a welfare state with its employees”.

According to Shaiq Hussain Magray’s plea, he was engaged as a sweeper-cum-chowkidar in Government Primary School, Goosu, Pulwama, against wages of Rs 25 per month in 1994.

He was “appointed by the Chief Education Officer Pulwama vide his order No CEO/Pul/741-42 dated July 1, 1994.”

Magray’s counsel, Shahbaz Sikander, argued that despite continuing for the past three decades, he had not been regularised by the law.

He contended that the District Level Screening Committee while scrutinising the credentials of the eligible Contingent Paid Workers (CPWs) had raised an observation regarding the genuineness of the engagement order of Magray.

“Vide order dated October 16, 2023, issued by the Chief Education Officer (CEO), Pulwama, which is the final seniority list of CPWs/LFWs as it stood on October 16, 2023, the petitioner figures at Serial No 13 of the said seniority list, however, in the remarks column there is an observation recorded which reads that genuineness of engagement order of the petitioner is pending,” Shahbaz said.

In response to the submission, the court said: “It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been working from the year 1994, however, his regularisation has not been considered for the reasons that the genuineness of his engagement order is pending.”

Moreover, Magray’s counsel sought direction to the government to clear the observation as recorded in the final seniority list vis- à-vis the genuineness of Magray’s engagement order.

After hearing the parties, the court disposed of the petition by asking the authorities to accord consideration to the engagement of the petitioner within eight weeks by the rules governing the field.

“However, the respondents are free to ascertain the genuineness of the engagement order,” the court said. “It is also provided that the present position of the petitioner will not be disturbed, however, which will be subject to the genuineness of his engagement.”