UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAGHAVENDRA R.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the respondent is that he entered the services of the petitioner through the employment exchange as a peon on 10-1-1980. He was appointed on temporary basis, but subsequently changed to ad hoc basis on the instructions issued from the Regional Director. However, he continued to work without any break. With effect from 1-7-1985 he was appointed to a substantive post of a peon. The petitioners granted the respondent the first and second financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. However, the services rendered on temporary/ad hoc basis with effect from 10-1-1980 to 30-6-1985 was not taken into account for the purposes of granting MACP benefit. Therefore he made a representation to the petitioners to grant him the said benefit. The petitioners informed him that in terms of the existing guidelines the ad hoc services rendered is not counted for grant of benefit under ACP/MACP Scheme. Therefore he filed the instant application before the Tribunal seeking to quash the said endorsement declining to take into account the period spent by him on ad hoc basis and further to direct them to reckon the said period for purposes of granting benefit under MACP Scheme. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the application. It declared that the respondent be considered as being regularly appointed and to treat his appointment as ad hoc appointment with effect from 1-1-1980 and count it for the purposes of ACP/MACP. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Union have filed the present petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the appointment of the respondent is purely on an ad hoc basis and liable to be terminated at any point of time without assigning any reasons. The memorandum of appointment is dated 7-1-1980 wherein they have culled out various conditions of appointment. Therefore the period spent by him from the date of work rendered by him on an ad hoc basis cannot be considered for grant of subsequent reliefs. He contends that the Tribunal committed an error in declaring that the respondent be deemed to be appointed on a regular basis from the date he was appointed on an ad hoc basis. The finding of the Tribunal is therefore perverse. He further contends that his contentions are well-covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and Others v Harkesh Chand and Others, 2013 AIR(SC) 403

(2.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. He contends that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for any interference. That the High Court of Madras has held that the employment on ad hoc basis should be considered for all subsequent reliefs. He further pleads that the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has no application to the case on hand. Hence he pleads that the petition be dismissed.

(3.) On hearing learned Counsels, we are of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. The admitted facts are that the respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis in terms of the memorandum dated 7-1-1980 on various terms and conditions. The same can be found at Annexure-A2 to the petition. It would state that the respondent is appointed on various terms and conditions. One such Condition No. (a) reads as follows.--