Bombay High Court
Varsha Ramesh Chavan And 8 Ors vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 9 June, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
1
WP.285-2016
Dond
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2016
1] Varsha Ramesh Chavan
Age:40 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 6(A),
Zawba Wadi, Thakurdwar, Mumbai-400 020.
2] Sanjay Sakharam Malegaonkan
Age:38 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 5/505/Shramil Niwas
Sane Guruji Marg,
Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400 012.
3] Sankalp L. Nare
Age:37 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 5, Kaveri, Arya
Swanand Nagar Gavdevi Road, Near Gavdevi Mandir,
Kulgaon, Badlapur (E),
Pin Code- 421 503.
4] Prashant N. Waradkar,
Age:38 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 01:00:55 :::
2
WP.285-2016
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at Room No.23/3, Mutkta
Devi Vadi, Near Mukta Devi Mandir, Sion
Chunabhatti-22.
5] Sangeeta Gopinath Chavan
Age:36 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at Jadhav C/o Sunil, Room
No.1, Ramchandra Nevale Chawl,
Ambewadi, Kurur Village, Malad (E).
Mumbai-400 097.
6] Sheetal Shrihari Ghotge
Age:40 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at B-1, Amar Hind Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd., Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai-400 057.
7] Usha Bhalchandra Warang
Age:36 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 16 Art Cottage, Ceasar Road
Amboli, Andheri (W),
Mumbai-400 058.
8] Smita A. Ambre
Age:36 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 01:00:55 :::
3
WP.285-2016
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 99/6,
Sarvashree Co-Op Housing Society Ltd.,
Belgrami Road, Kurla (West),
Mumbai-400 070.
9] Sujita Prabhakar Nagolkar
Age:35 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at C/o Ramdas Vithal Kamtekar
Kashinath Dhruruchi Kharwadi,
Nr. Ravi Prakash Company
A.V. Marg, Old. Prabhadevi
Mumbai-400 028. ...Petitioners.
Versus
1] Union of India through the Secretary of
Ministry of Law and Justice Dept. of
Legal Affairs of India,
Government of India
Shastri Bhavan, Ashok Road
New Delhi- 110 003.
2] The President,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
3rd & 4th Floor, Old CGO Building
Mharshi Karve Road,
New Marine Lines, Churchgate,
Mumbai- 20.
3] The Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Lok Nayak Bhavan, 10th and 11th Floor,
Khan Market,
New Delhi- 110 003.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 01:00:55 :::
4
WP.285-2016
4] The Deputy Registrar,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Old CGO Building
Mharshi Karve Road,
New Marine Lines, Churchgate,
Mumbai- 20. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1093 OF 2016
1] Union of India through the Secretary of
Ministry of Law and Justice Dept. of
Legal Affairs of India,
Government of India
Shastri Bhavan, Ashok Road
New Delhi- 110 003.
2] The President,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
3rd & 4th Floor, Old CGO Building
Mharshi Karve Road,
New Marine Lines, Churchgate,
Mumbai- 20.
3] The Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Lok Nayak Bhavan, 10th and 11th Floor,
Khan Market,
New Delhi- 110 003.
4] The Deputy Registrar,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Old CGO Building
Mharshi Karve Road,
New Marine Lines, Churchgate,
Mumbai- 20. ..Petitioners
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 01:00:55 :::
5
WP.285-2016
Versus
1] Varsha Ramesh Chavan
Age:40 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 6(A),
Zawba Wadi, Thakurdwar, Mumbai-400 020.
2] Sanjay Sakharam Malegaonkan
Age:38 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 5/505/Shramil Niwas
Sane Guruji Marg,
Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400 012.
3] Sankalp L. Nare
Age:37 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 5, Kaveri, Arya
Swanand Nagar Gavdevi Road, Near Gavdevi Mandir,
Kulgaon, Badlapur (E),
Pin Code- 421 503.
4] Prashant N. Waradkar,
Age:38 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at Room No.23/3, Mutkta
Devi Vadi, Near Mukta Devi Mandir, Sion
Chunabhatti-22.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 01:00:55 :::
6
WP.285-2016
5] Sangeeta Gopinath Chavan
Age:36 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at Jadhav C/o Suniil, Room
No.1, Ramchandra Nevale Chawl,
Ambewadi, Kurur Village, Malad (E).
Mumbai-400 097.
6] Sheetal Shrihari Ghotge
Age:40 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at B-1, Amar Hind Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd., Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai-400 057.
7] Usha Bhalchandra Warang
Age:36 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 16 Art Cottage, Ceasar Road
Amboli, Andheri (W),
Mumbai-400 058.
8] Renuka Ramakant Pawar
Age:36 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at Room No. 403 "B" Wing,
Sukhshanti Apts., Shimpoli Chikoowadi,
Borivali (West),
Mumbai-400 092.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 01:00:55 :::
7
WP.285-2016
9] Smita A. Ambre
Age:36 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at 99/6,
Sarvashree Co-Op Housing Society Ltd.,
Belgrami Road, Kurla (West),
Mumbai-400 070.
10] Sujita Prabhakar Nagolkar
Age:35 years, presently working as
Lower Division Clerk, in the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pratishtha Bhavan,
3rd floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 and Residing at C/o Ramdas Vithal Kamtekar
Kashinath Dhruruchi Kharwadi,
Nr. Ravi Prakash Company
A.V. Marg, Old. Prabhadevi
Mumbai-400 028. ...Respondents
-------
Ms. Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy for Petitioners
in Writ Petition No.285 of 2016 and for Respondents in Writ Petition
No.1093 of 2016.
Mrs. Neeta Masurkar a/w Mr. Vinod Joshi for Respondents in Writ Petition
No.285 of 2016 and for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.1093 of 2016.
-----
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 01:00:55 :::
8
WP.285-2016
CORAM: R.M. BORDE AND
A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
Reserved On : 14 February 2017.
Pronounced On: 09 JUNE 2017.
JUDGMENT [ PER A.S. GADKARI, J.]:-
1] The petitioners in Writ Petition No.285 of 2016 are the
respondents in Writ Petition No.1093 of 2016 and the respondents in Writ
Petition No.285 of 2016 are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1093 of
2016.
For the sake of brevity, hereinafter the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.285 of 2016 and the respondents in Writ Petition No.1093 of
2016 will be termed as "petitioners" and the respondents in Writ Petition
No.285 of 2016 and petitioners in Writ Petition No.2016 will be termed as
"respondents".
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.285 of 2016 have
impugned the Order dated 27.11.2014 passed in Review Petition No.45 of
2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Bombay Bench,
Mumbai and have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to give full
effect to the directions issued by the Tribunal in its Judgment dated 21 st
WP.285-2016
July 2014 in OA No817 of 2011 and regularize the petitioners from the
initial date of their appointment in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT) as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs).
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1093 of 2016 have
impugned the Orders, dated 27.11.2014 in Review Petition No.45 of 2014
in OA No.817 of 2011 and dated 21.7.2014 in OA No.817 of 2011 passed
by the C.A.T., Mumbai and for declaration that the respondents therein are
not selected by due procedure established and by due process of law and
their services cannot be regularized.
As both petitions involve same facts and impugns the same
orders passed by the CAT, Mumbai, both the petitions are being decided by
this common judgment.
2] It is the case of the petitioners that I.T.A.T. Group "C" Post
Recruitment Rules come into effect on 10.12.1984 and there was no
requirement under the said Rules that Group-'C' Post of L.D.C. should be
filled up by the Staff Selection Commission. The petitioners were
appointed as LDC's on various dates between 1998 to 2001 in the ITAT,
Mumbai after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and by
following the procedure prescribed by the Recruitment Rules with the
sanction of the Competent Authority and against sanctioned vacant posts.
WP.285-2016
That the petitioners have been signing their Muster Roll from the date of
their first appointment as regular employees and without any distinction
between the petitioners as ad-hoc employees and other regular employees
in the post of LDC. That their services were extended from time to time
since the date of their initial appointment and they have been working
continuously since then. That there is no compulsion for the ITAT to recruit
its staff to the Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts through the Staff Selection
Commission, since ITAT is a statutory body and cannot be said to be a
Central Ministry or Department or attached or subordinate office of Central
Ministry or Department. That the Assistant Legal Advisor, Ministry of Law
and Justice by its letter dated 17.1.2008 has accordingly informed the ITAT
that, the statutory body can recruit its staff directly without reference to the
Staff Selection Commission.
3] It is the specific contention of the petitioners that, the Principal
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in the case of Uma
Vaidyanathan, L.D.C., ITAT, Delhi Bench Vs. Union of India& Ors in O.A.
No.1744 of 2004 by its Order dated 18.7.2005 has held that, as per ITAT
Recruitment Rules, there is no requirement that the L.D.Cs in ITAT should
be recruited only through Staff Selection Commission. That the said
Judgment in the case of Uma Vaidyanathan has been implemented by the
WP.285-2016
respondents by its Order dated 10.4.2006 and the said person was
regularized as a LDC with effect from 1.11.1993. That further promotion
has also been given to the said Uma Vaidyanathan as U.D.C. (Upper
Division Clerk) on regular basis by Order dated 12.7.2006. It is further
contended that, by letter dated 17.1.2008 issued by the Ministry of Law and
Justice to the ITAT, it is mentioned that DOPT has informed that Staff
Selection Commission does not recruit for Autonomous
bodies/Organisations like ITAT and that the Staff Selection Commission
has no objection for the ITAT to directly recruit its staff. That on or about
4.12.2009 the petitioners made individual representation to the President,
ITAT for regularization of their services from first date of appointment with
consequential benefits. That on 24.6.2010 the petitioners received replies
from the Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai informing that, action will be
taken on the representation after decision of the CAT, Mumbai Bench in the
case of similarly situated LDC.
4] The C.A.T. Mumbai, delivered its Judgment dated 20 th July
2010 in OA Nos.593 of 2007 to 598 of 2007 in the case of Uday R. Rane &
Ors., wherein the Tribunal directed the ITAT to consider the case of the
said persons for regularization and in case the applicants therein are so
considered and found fit for regular appointment, they shall be entitled to
WP.285-2016
all notional benefits of seniority, pay fixation, etc from the date of their
initial appointment, but no arrears would be paid to them.
The ITAT thereafter passed Orders dated 10.3.2011 in the case
of Uday R. Rane and Others regularizing their service as LDC's with effect
from 27.1.2008. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Uday
R. Rane, the petitioners made further representation dated 28.3.2011 with
the respondents, however, the respondents did not reply the same. It is
stated that, the respondents have implemented and had given full effect to
the Orders passed by the Tribunal in the case of Uma Vaidyanathan (O.A.
No.1744 of 2004) and Uday R. Rane & Ors. (O.A .Nos.593 to 598 of
2007) and as the petitioners case is similarly situated, they also deserves to
be regularized as LDCs from the date of their first appointment with all
consequential service benefits and therefore the present petitioners filed
OA No.817 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay
Bench, Mumbai.
5] It is the case of the respondents that, the appointment of the
petitioners to the post of LDC's with ITAT can be made only by the Staff
Selection Commission. That the petitioners were sponsored through the
Employment Exchange, for appointment as LDC's, on ad-hoc basis to
meet the exigency of work load of ITAT against available vacancies. That it
WP.285-2016
will not bestow any claim for regular appointment in that grade and that
their services are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any
reasons. It is stated that, the contention of the petitioners that there is no
distinction between them and other regular employees working against the
post of LDCs is false and misleading. That the annual increment, provident
fund, and other consequential benefits are available only to regular the
employees and not extended to the applicants who are ad-hoc employees. It
is contended that as per Government of India O.M dated
4.11.1975/21.5.1999, it is mandatory that all recruitment to the posts of
LDCs in the Central Government are to be made through the Staff
Selection Commission. That although the Ministry of Law and Justice has
communicated by its letter dated 17.1.2008 that it may not be mandatory
for ITAT to go in for recruitment of staff of Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts
through the Staff Selection Commission, for such recruitment policy
decision may be taken to move from the above position and make their
own arrangement.
It is however admitted by the respondents that, the petitioners
were sponsored through the Employment Exchange for appointment as
LDC on ad-hoc basis and the petitioners have also qualified as required in
the test viz. written, typing and interview at the time of their initial
WP.285-2016
appointment. It is also admitted that the appointments have prior approval
and sanction of the Competent Authority. It is also not in dispute about the
contents of the letter dated 17.1.2008 addressed by the Ministry of Law and
Justice. That initial appointment of the petitioners were extended on ad-hoc
basis from time to time since requisite number of candidates from the Staff
Selection Commission were not sponsored. It is further admitted that the
Orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A No.593 of 2007 to 598 of 2007
(Uday R. Rane & Ors.) and the directions issued therein for considering the
regularization of services of the persons concerned therein was not
challenged by the respondents and the services of the said employees were
regularized.
6] The learned Members of the Tribunal after scrutinizing the
entire material made available before them, were pleased to allow the said
O.A. No.817 of 2011 by its Judgment and Order dated 21.7.2014 and
directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
regularization in service with all consequential benefits from the date of
their initial appointment on an urgent basis and to complete the process
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the said Order by passing appropriate Office Order to that effect and to
communicate the same to the applicants at the earliest.
WP.285-2016
7] The respondents thereafter preferred a Review Petition bearing
No.45 of 2014 and the learned Members of the Tribunal in view of Order
passed in the case of Uday R. Rane & Ors, reviewed its earlier Order and
by its Order dated 27.11.2014 directed that the "consequential benefits"
appearing in their Order dated 21.7.2014 cannot be extended/given to the
petitioners, as it creates two different class of LDC's and paragraph-14 of
the Order dated 21.7.2014 was accordingly modified. That after directing
the said modification, the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Review
Petition.
The record discloses that, after Order dated 21.7.2014 was
passed by the Tribunal, the respondents have regularized the services of the
petitioners as LDC's in ITAT with effect from 24.4.2014 by its Order dated
6.1.2015.
8] The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that though
the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioners for regularization in service with all consequential benefits from
the date of their initial appointment, the ITAT has given them appointment
with effect from 24.4.2014 and not from the date of their initial
appointment against the sanctioned posts ranging from 1998 to 2001,
thereby depriving them from all consequential benefits. He submitted that
WP.285-2016
the Tribunal has committed error in reviewing its own Judgment and Order
dated 21.7.2014 and has further erred in deleting the words "consequential
benefits" from it. He submitted that the said Review Petition was dealt
with and decided by the Tribunal as if it was hearing an appeal against the
original Order. That the Tribunal has directed that the petitioners be
considered at par with Rane's case without consequential benefits, the
petitioners would suffer substantial loss and now will be entitled only for
nominal seniority, pay fixation etc. He therefore prayed that the Order
passed in Review Petition No.45 of 2014 dated 27.11.2014 therefore be
quashed and set aside and the Order passed by the Tribunal dated
21.7.2014 in O.A. No.817 of 2011 be restored in its entirety.
9] The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents
vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioners and submitted that,
the appointments of the petitioners on ad-hoc basis to the post of LDC's are
not in conformity with the rules and regulations prescribed by the
respondents and as their appointment to the said post is without
recommendation of the Staff Selection Commission, the services of the
petitioners cannot be regularized. She further submitted that the
regularization or absorption of the petitioners in the services of the
respondents is not a matter of course and cannot be dehors of rules for such
WP.285-2016
regularization/absorption. In support of her contention, she relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar [AIR 2015 SC 133].
The learned Counsel for the respondents has however fairly
conceded the admitted facts recorded in para No.5 hereinabove, wherein
the respondents have given certain unqualified admissions before the
C.A.T. during the course of hearing of Original Application No.817 of
2011. She lastly prayed that the petition filed by the petitioners be
dismissed and the petition filed by the respondents may be allowed.
10] A useful reference at this stage can be made to the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L.
Kesari & Ors. [(2010) 9 SCC 247] and in particular to para Nos.6 and 7
which reads as under:
"6.This Court in Umadevi further held that a temporary,
contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a
legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed
in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence 4 of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one
exception to the above position and the same is extracted below
: (SCC p.42, para-53
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as
explained in S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) SCR 128], R.N.
WP.285-2016
Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979
(4) SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly
qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have
been made and the employees have continued to work for ten
years or more but without the intervention of orders of the
courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the
services of such employees may have to be considered on
merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the
cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In
that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and
their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-
time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who
have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts
but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and
should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken
to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled
up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are
being now employed. The process must be set in motion
within six months from this date. ...."
7.It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the
general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if
the following conditions are fulfilled :
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or
more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of
the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State
Government or its instrumentality should have employed the
employee and continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even
if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued
against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not
possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments
will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed
possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against
sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the
process of open competitive selection, such appointments are
considered to be irregular."
WP.285-2016
11] A minute perusal of the record would reveal that the
petitioners were appointed to the post of LDCs (Group 'C') with the ITAT,
Mumbai against sanctioned vacant posts by following due procedure as per
recruitment rules and regulations with the sanction of competent authority.
The petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the
procedure in that behalf was also complied with by following the due
procedure. It is an admitted position that the Ministry of Law and Justice
by its letter dated 17.1.2008 has informed the ITAT that the Staff Selection
Commission does not recruit for Autonomous bodies/Organisations like
ITAT and that the Staff Selection Commission has no objection for the
ITAT to directly recruit its staff. It is also an admitted fact that the
appointments of the petitioners on the said posts are against sanctioned
vacant posts and after following due procedure prescribed by recruitment
rules. That the appointment of the petitioners are not illegal appointments.
12] As stated earlier, the appointment of the petitioners on the said
posts were effected by following due procedure and against sanctioned
posts and therefore even otherwise the said appointments cannot be even
termed as irregular appointments. The record clearly discloses that the
respondents have complied with the directions issued in the case of Uma
Vaidyanathan (OA No.1744 of 2004) & Sushila Butola w/o Dilwar Singh
WP.285-2016
Butola (OA No.1825 of 2004) and Uday R. Rane & Ors (OA Nos.593 to
598 of 2007). The respondents have not only implemented, but also gave
full effect to the said Orders. In our view, the case of the petitioners is
similarly situated as that of Uday R. Rane & Ors. case (O.A. Nos.593 to
598 of 2007) and the principle of parity squarely applies to the petitioners.
13] In the case of Uday R. Rane & Ors. (A.O. Nos.593 to 598 of
2007), the Tribunal by its Order dated 20 th July 2010 had directed the ITAT
to consider the case of the said persons for regularization and in case the
applicants therein are so considered and found fit for regular appointment,
they shall be entitled to all notional benefits (emphasis supplied) of
seniority, pay fixation, etc from the date of their initial appointment, but no
arrears would be paid to them. In the present case, the Tribunal by its Order
dated 21.7.2014 had initially directed the respondents to consider the case
of the petitioners for regularization in service with all consequential
benefits (emphasis supplied) from the date of their initial appointment on
an urgent basis. That in Review Petition preferred by the respondents, the
Tribunal by its Order dated 27.11.2014 has clarified that the Order in the
present case has been passed on the basis of precedence established in the
case of Uday R. Rane (supra) which has been implemented by the
respondents and therefore the reference to consequential benefits cannot
WP.285-2016
result in creation of two different classes of LDCs and has to be read with
the operative para-14 of the impugned Order. We are in full agreement with
the view taken by the Tribunal in Review Petition No.45 of 2014, as the
case of the petitioners is based on the principle of parity with the case of
Uday R. Rane (supra).
14] As stated hereinabove, there was no direction for
consequential benefits in the case of Uday Rane & Ors. and it was held that
the applicants therein were entitled to all notional benefits of seniority, pay
fixation etc. As the case of the petitioners is squarely based on the principle
of parity with the case of Uday Rane & Ors., we are of the considered view
that the petitioners herein cannot claim consequential benefits and are
entitled for notional benefits. However, we are of the further view that the
petitioners are entitled for regularization of their service as LDCs in the
ITAT with effect from their initial appointment as has been directed by the
Tribunal by its Order dated 21.7.2014 and not with effect from 24.4.2014
as has been ordered by the I.T.A.T.
15] With aforestated clarification, we partly allow the Writ
Petition No.285 of 2016 filed by the petitioners, with no order as to costs.
16] As far as Writ Petition No.1093 of 2016 preferred by the
respondents is concerned, after minutely perusing the entire record and in
WP.285-2016
view of aforestated discussion, the challenge by the respondents to the
impugned Orders, in our view, is dehors of any merits. The Writ Petition
No.1093 of 2016 is accordingly dismissed.
(A.S. GADKARI,J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)
