Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 798 (JK)

UOI v. Kiran Bala

2017-09-01

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of impugned order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (for short ‘Tribunal’) by which the original application preferred by the respondent was allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to regularize the services of the respondents on the basis of benefits granted in the case of Nand Kishore and ors vs. UOI and ors, decided on 30.04.2004 by passing appropriate orders within a period of three months. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition briefly stated are that the respondent was initially engaged as Inquiry-cum-Reservation clerk in 1999. She was entitled to claim regularization after a period of three years. The respondent filed Original Application before the Tribunal which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners herein to decide the representation of the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed a contempt petition in which a stand was taken by the petitioners that the services of the respondent have already been regularized on the post of Inquiry-cum-Reservation clerk. 3. By an order dated 21.04.2015, the respondent as well as the other candidates were asked to appear in the written examination for selection to the post of Mobile Booking Clerk. One of the conditions contained in the aforesaid order was that those candidates, who qualified the written examination, their services shall be regularized from the date of approval of the panel by the competent authority. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed original application before the Tribunal in which the respondent had made a prayer for quashment of order dated 21.04.2015 as well as directions to the petitioners herein to regularize the services of the respondent from the date when he had completed three years of service. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the original application, the respondent appeared in the examination and was declared as successful and by an order dated 29.07.2015, the respondent along with the other candidates after being declared as qualified in the written examination for the post of Mobile Booking Clerk were directed to undergo for prerequisite training course. Thereafter, by an order dated 10.11.2015, the services of the respondent were regularized w.e.f 26.06.2015. 4. Thereafter, by an order dated 10.11.2015, the services of the respondent were regularized w.e.f 26.06.2015. 4. The Tribunal vide order dated 25.11.2016 allowed the original application and it was held that the controversy involved in the original application was put to rest by the decision of the Tribunal in O.A No.551/2002 i.e in the case of Nand Kishore & ors vs. Union of India and ors, decided on 30.04.2004. It was further held that the objection taken by the petitioners that the scheme was only meant for Mobile Booking Clerk and not for Enquiry-cum-Reservation clerk has been taken care of by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation decided on 13.07.1998 which has attained finality. Accordingly, the condition qua regularization of the services of the respondent from the date of panel was quashed and set aside and the petitioners herein were directed to extend the benefit of decision in the case of Nand Kishore (supra) to the respondent. In the aforesaid factual background, this writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the decision in the case of Nand Kishire (supra) was not applicable to the case of the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent on her own volition had appeared for recruitment to the post of Mobile Booking Clerk and was selected for the same. Therefore, after having participated in the written examination and after having availed the benefit, she cannot be permitted to turn around and claim regularization retrospectively on the post of Mobile Booking Clerk on which she has never functioned. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash, AIR 2006 (SC) 651 as well as in the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 2802-2804 of 2013. It is further submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Nand Kishore (supra) does not deal with the case of the employees who were working on the post of Enquiry-cum-Reservation clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced copy of order dated 09.07.1998 passed in OA No. 3053/1991. 6. 2802-2804 of 2013. It is further submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Nand Kishore (supra) does not deal with the case of the employees who were working on the post of Enquiry-cum-Reservation clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced copy of order dated 09.07.1998 passed in OA No. 3053/1991. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in civil writ petition no.1071/1999 i.e Union of India vs. Sat Pal Singh, and has submitted that the case of the respondent is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 7. From the close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 25.11.2016, we find that the Tribunal has failed to take into account the facts which have material bearing on the controversy involved in the instant writ petition as well as the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties which were not raised before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Sat Pal Singh (supra) was also not cited and the Tribunal has also failed to take into account the fact that the post of Mobile Booking Clerk is a selection post. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, the impugned order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the original application afresh in accordance with law in the lights of the observations made supra. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.