[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Maharaj Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 12 March, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:1677-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT
Writ Petition No. 604 of 2022 (SB)
Maharaj Singh --Petitioner
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal
through its Registrar and others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant,
Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. Petitioner has challenged judgment dated
17.05.2022, rendered by Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad, Circuit Bench Nainital in Transfer
Application No. 25 of 2018. By the said judgment,
challenge thrown by the petitioner to the order dated
03.10.2013 whereby his representation claiming
temporary status was rejected. Operative portion of the
impugned judgment is reproduced below:
"11. It is seen that the applicants have sought
extension of benefit of the Scheme of 1997. Though they
are aggrieved by the provisions of the said Scheme, they
have chosen not to challenge the same. It cannot be denied
that the respondents have processed the claim to applicants
to their best of intentions, and accordingly, sought
exemption from the DOPT; unfortunately the same was not
acceded to by the DoPT. It can be concluded that the said
process was recommendatory in nature and since the said
recommendation did not find merit with the DoPT the
Respondents could not take it forward. However, it is true
that the said recommendation has given the right of
legitimate expectation to the applicants. But then DoPT
2026:UHC:1677-DB
being the nodal ministry, their advice cannot be ignored. It
is also seen that the applicants have though worked
intermittently for a period of 11 years, yet the actual period
eliminating the period for which they have been disengaged
is less than four years. It is also not in dispute that in spite
of ban the applicants were allowed to work after 1997. The
applicants have been engaged only for seasonal work in the
relevant years. It is also seen that in case the applicants
have less than 10 to 4 years of service left on account of
their age. It is also seen that they have been out of
employment for last 17 years. At this stage, we feel that we
are not able to grant any relief so prayed by the applicants.
We have our sympathy with the applicants, though the
same cannot be a substitute of the relief."
2. It is not in dispute that petitioner was engaged as
seasonal employee to discharge duties as khalasi in
Central Water Commission in the year 1985. According
to him, he discharged duties as such, though with
artificial breaks, till 2004, and he was disengaged from
service w.e.f. 15.10.2004 without any rhyme or reason.
Petitioner challenged his disengagement by filing Writ
Petition No. 658 of 2005 (SS); the said writ petition,
however, was decided on 29.11.2012 with direction to
the competent authority to take decision on the
representation, to be submitted by petitioner, within
eight weeks, by ignoring the stand taken by respondent
No. 4 in their counter affidavit.
3. Petitioner submitted representation in terms of the
order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 658 of 2005, which however was rejected by
Superintending Engineer, Central Water Commission
vide order dated 03.10.2013. In the rejection order, it
was mentioned that petitioner has crossed the upper
age limit for entry into group-C post as per the
applicable recruitment rules, therefore, the matter was
referred to Department of Personnel and Training for
2026:UHC:1677-DB
relaxation. DoPT, however, turned down the proposal
submitted for exemption to petitioner with the remark
that "as a policy, we do not consider relaxation in age
limit and qualification prescribed for direct recruitment."
4. Petitioner challenged the said rejection order
before Central Administrative Tribunal and his
application has been dismissed by the impugned
judgment.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record. Learned Tribunal held that petitioner's claim
for temporary status/absorption in service is unfounded
as he is out of employment for the last 17 years;
petitioner has not challenged the policy, which provides
for temporary status to casual employees and as per
that policy, petitioner is not eligible for temporary
status.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner challenged the condition of the Scheme dated
20.06.1997, which provides that the scheme would be
applicable only to those seasonal khalasis who are
engaged in any time during the preceding one year;
however, learned Tribunal did not consider that prayer,
therefore, erred in making an observation that the
provision of the Scheme was not challenged by the
petitioner.
7. We find some substance in the said contention;
however, having regard to the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case, we find no scope for
2026:UHC:1677-DB
interference with the impugned judgment, as petitioner
cannot be given temporary status today when he is out
of employment since 2004 and has also attained the
age of superannuation.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
________________________
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Dt: 12th March, 2026
Mahinder
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca
MAHINDER SINGH 168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5C
DD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8
F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.03.20 18:26:59 +05'30'
