UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Heard

(2.) The respondent Pradeep Kumar Saxena was engaged as a Typist on daily wages on 5/8/1987 in the North Eastern Railway at Lucknow and was discontinued on 11/3/1988. The respondent made certain representations against the discontinuance of his engagement, on 17/1/1989 and 10/4/1989. It was only in July 1992 that the respondent made an application before the Central administrative tribunal, Lucknow bench making a grievance against the discontinuance of his engagement as a Typist placing reliance on a decision of the tribunal in Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India. The tribunal accepted the respondent's claim and following its decision in Inder Pal Yadav allowed the respondent's application directing his regularisation together with consequential benefits. Hence, this appeal by special by the Union of India.

(3.) It is obvious that the tribunal's decision in Inder Pal Yadav has no application in the present case and that decision cannot support the respondent's claim for regularisation. In Inder Pal Yadav case the persons involved had been working as Typists continuously for more than three years, their initial appointment itself having been made against regular posts and they had also been accorded temporary status. None of these conditions were satisfied in the case of the respondent. In fact there is no such appointment order in favour of the respondent which itself is an indication of the casual nature of his engagement.