D UMA, W/O T DAYALAN Vs. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFTS); REGIONAL DIRECTOR, O/O THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFTS), CHENNAI; DEPUTY DIRECTOR, O/O THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (HANDICRAFTS), BANGALORE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) The short facts of the case appear to be that as per the petitioner, she was appointed on Ad-hoc basis on 10.03.1997 as Showroom Assistant. She continued in service. At the time when she was appointed, there were no recruitment rules. But thereafter recruitment rules were framed for the post in question and as per the said recruitment rules, the requisite qualification was graduation. Since she did not possess graduation and there were powers available for relaxation of the recruitment rules with the competent authority, she applied for relaxation. It appears that thereafter vide order dated 29.03.1989 she was communicated that the relaxation has been granted vide decision dated 29.08.1985. The petitioner continued in service and in the year 1999, she became entitled to first MACP and therefore the order was passed by the competent authority in the year 2000 for relaxing first MACP with effect from 1999. When the petitioner completed 20 years of service, she became eligible for release of second MACP and the same was also came to be released with effect from 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner further continued in service and she retired from service in the year 2012. As per the petitioner, in the year 2011 prior to the retirement, the representation was made by the petitioner to the authority praying to release third MACP. But the representation remained undecided. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred O.A.No.147/2012 before the Tribunal for redressal of the grievance wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 16.08.2012 directed the respondents to take appropriate decision upon representation of the petitioner. It appears that thereafter, the respondent-authority vide order dated 27.09.2012 rejected the representation of the petitioner observing that the period prior to the regularization in service cannot be considered and therefore she is not entitled to third MACP. Under such circumstances, the petitioner approached before the Tribunal by preferring O.A.No.936/2012. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides, passed the impugned order whereby the application of the petitioner has been dismissed. Under such circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(3.) We have heard Sri. H. Basava Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.