LAWS(KAR)-2013-12-479

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, KARNATAKA TELECOM CIRCLE AND THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR & A) Vs. B. RATNAKARA HEGDE

Decided On December 18, 2013
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, The Chief General Manager Telecom, Karnataka Telecom Circle And The Assistant General Manager (Hr And A) Appellant
V/S
B. Ratnakara Hegde Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT herein was appointed as Extra Departmental Telegraph Messenger on 18.7.1984 in the office of the Indian Postal and Telegraph Department, Post Master, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District. The appointment order dated 18.7.1984 makes it clear that the respondent's appointment was provisional and he can be terminated without assigning any reason; the respondent may be governed by the ED (Conduct & Services) Rules, 1964 as amended from time to time and all other Rules applicable to ED Agents, etc. Thus, it is clear that the respondent was working as Extra Departmental Chowkidar (Delivery Agent:) since 1984. Thereafter he was deputed to work in the Department of Telecom in the year 1992, in the office of the Telegraph Department at Puttur, once again on temporary basis. In the year 2002, the respondent started making representations seeking regularization of his services as Telegraph Messenger. However, the said request of the respondent was not acceded to. Thus, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 224/2009 which came to be allowed by the order dated 17.2.2010 directing the petitioners herein to regularize the services of the respondent. The said order was questioned by the petitioners in WP. No. 19262/2010 before this Court which came to be disposed of on 20.1.2011 with a direction to the petitioners to reconsider the claim of the respondent for regularization/absorption with reference to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi, reported in : (2006) 4 SCC 1. While disposing of the said writ petition, the following observations were made by this Court: -

(2.) SRI Vishnu Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was not appointed as against the sanctioned post and therefore, his services cannot be regularized.