Shri Ganga Dhar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 975 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as casual labour in the year 1972 by the respondent No. 5/Railway. He was subsequently regularised in Group-D service in the year 1979. He was promoted in Group-C as 'Material Checking Clerk' (hereinafter referred to as MCC, for short) grade - Rs. 260/- - Rs. 400/- w.e.f. 6th January, 1981.

2. He was further promoted as U.D.C./Senior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 330/- - Rs. 560/- w.e.f. 1st April, 1985. This promotion was however on ad-hoc basis. He was again promoted as 'Head Clerk' grade Rs. 425/- - Rs. 700/- (Rs. 1400- Rs. 2300/- revised) on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 16th February, 1987.

3. By Order dated 1st January, 1981 he was reverted to the post of 'Senior Clerk'. Thereafter, by Order dated 18th March, 1991 he was again reverted to the post of 'MCC'. He sought regularisation in the post of MCC on the ground that he was working on the said post since 1981.

4. As the respondents did not accede to his demand the petitioner filed Original Application No. 96/96 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi claiming this relief. However, by reason of Order dated 20th April, 2000 the learned Tribunal has dismissed his application. The reason for dismissing the application was that during the pendency of the said Original Application the petitioner was regularised from 1988. However, the petitioner claimed that he was entitled for regularisation from 1981 i.e. from the date when he was promoted to the post of MCC. This prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal by observing as under:-

"It is stated that the applicant has been regularised, according to the respondents, from 1988. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled for regularisation from 1981. It is also stated that the persons who had been working along with the applicant from 1981 have been regularised right from the date on which they are put to work as MCC in view of the circular dated 26.7.1988 of the General Manager, Northern Railway. But it must be noticed that in none of the cases relied on by the applicant did the question of limitation come up for consideration. The applicant, having filed the OA in 1996 cannot seek any relief which was barred by limitation. It is true that the applicant has been working as MCC. But he was working only on ad hoc basis. His right for regularisation admittedly arose only from 26.7.1988, when a circular was issued by General Manager, Northern Railway. Now that he was regularised w.e.f. 1988, no grievance survives for him. In the circumstances, no order need be passed. The OA is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as MCC only on ad hoc basis. He was regularised in the year 1988 when Circular dated 26th July, 1988 was issued by the General Manager, Northern Railway as per which it was decided that all MCCs who were working on ad hoc basis for more than three years should be regularised. Acting on the said Circular the case of the petitioner was considered and regularisation Order was passed. This Circular dated 26th July, 1988 records the meeting of the management with the union held on 6-7th June, 1988. Relevant para whereof reads as under:-

"GM ordered that the cases of ALD Divns and other Divns wherein the MCCs are working on adhoc basis for more than 3 years shall be decided, on the same pattern of Delhi and LKO Divn, and orders to this effect will be issued to the DRMs for immediate compliance. At this stage, CPO pointed out to the union that similar decision has been made in case of other Rajinder Pal Singh, Pharmacist, Bikaner Division who has been officiating on adhoc basis since 1973 and DRM BKN is being asked to regularise Sh. Rajinder Pal Singh.'

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as casual labour in 1972 and was regularised in the said Group-D post in the year 1979. Promotion from Group-D to Group-C post, would be governed by relevant recruitment rules. Parties have not produced these rules before us. However, the promotion Order dated 17th August, 1981 is filed as per which he was posted as MCC purely on local arrangement basis. Thus it shows that at the time of promoting/appointing the petitioner as MCC relevant recruitment rules were not followed and, may be, all eligible persons were also not considered as is clear from the expression used in the ad hoc promotion Order to the effect that it was 'purely on local arrangement' basis. Such an appointment to the post of MCC on ad hoc basis would not give any right to the petitioner to seek regularisation unless the appointment is made as per procedure laid down in the statutory recruitment rules. It was only because of the decision of General Manager contained in letter dated 26th July, 1988 that the petitioner became entitled to regularisation. He was, therefore, rightly regularised in the year 1988 and cannot claim his regularisation w.e.f. 6th January, 1981.

In view of the above, we do not find infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal. This Writ Petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.