GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY; DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER; DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. BALAJI NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service with 50% backwages in O.A.No.302/2007 vide order dated 10.6.2009, this petition is filed by the South Western Railways.

(2.) As the facts unfurl, the respondent was engaged as a Substitute Bungalow Peon for one P.R.Suresh, Deputy Chief Engineer, Bangalore, vide appointment order dated 21.2.2005. The terms and conditions of his appointment interalia provided for termination without assigning any reason within three years on the request of sponsoring Officer. He was prevented from work on 1.7.2007 in the bungalow of Sri.P.R.Suresh. He was not paid salary fully for the period of service rendered by him. On that, he approached the Tribunal seeking for pay and allowance from 5.6.2007 to 30.6.2007. During the pendency of the petition, his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 20.12.2007. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of C.A.T. at Ahmedabad in O.A.No.671/2004 dated 3.9.2008 quashed the order of termination with a direction to the petitioners herein to reinstate him into service with continuity of service for the purpose of his seniority and pension along with 50% of backwages. It was further directed to pay allowances from 5.6.2007 till the date of his termination from service. It is against said order, present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Sri.K.Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the Tribunal once rejected the application i.e., O.A.No.302/2007 vide order dated 10.07.2008. On his Review Petition, relying on the judgment of the C.A.T., Ahmedabad Bench, in O.A.No.671/2004 dated 3.9.2008, allowed the petition. But the facts and circumstances of the said case has no relevance to the facts on hand. The employee was not confirmed with temporary status. Hence, he cannot claim the benefit available to an employee, whose service is regularized. His service was not satisfactory. The officer Sri.P.R.Suresh under whom he served, had complained against him. Because his engagement was on adhoc basis, he was liable to be terminated without assigning any reason within three years. Accordingly, he is now removed from service. The order passed by the Tribunal is illegal, and without jurisdiction.