UNION OF INDIA Vs. J S ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 17/11/2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 938/98 whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the respondents herein was allowed. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

(2.) The respondents Mrs. Visalakshi Sivanandan, Shri Pramod Kumar and Shri J.S. Arora were appointed as daily wage typists for three months on 26/11/1985, 20/08/1986 and 6/11/1986 respectively. Later they were appointed as ad hoc LDCs - Smt. Visalakshi Sivanandan w.e.f. 7/03/1986 and Shri Pramod Kumar and J.S. Arora with effect from 2/03/1987. On 06.12.1986, Smt. K.S. Visalakshi passed typing test conducted by the ISTM and on 28.02.1987 Shri J.S. Arora and Shri Pramod Kumar also passed typing test conducted by the ISTM. It is said that while the first post of LDC fell vacant on 27.9.1988 with the promotion of Shri G.K. Sharma as regular UDC from the said date, the 2nd and 3rd vacancies were caused upon the promotion of Shri A.K. Sharma and Mrs. Binita Nandwani as UDCs on regular basis w.e.f. 6.5.1992. 2nd and 3rd vacancies to be filled by general candidates arose on 16.5.1992. It is also said that 4h and 5th vacancies arose on 12.08.1993 to be filled up by ST and General candidates respectively. Against the first vacancy Shri Chander Prakash was appointed on 12.08.1993 as he was an SC candidate on the basis of the recommendation of a DPC meeting held on 12.08.1993. Against the 3rd vacancy Shri J.S. Arora was appointed w.e.f. 12.08.1993 on the basis of typewriting test conducted by ISTM on 28.2.1987 and after assessment of ACRs. The 4th vacancy was carried over as this was reserved for ST and no eligible candidate from ST category was available at that time. Shri Pramod Kumar was appointed as LDC against the 5th vacancy on 12.08.1993 on the basis of typewriting test conducted by ISTM on 28.02.1987 and after assessment of ACRs. O.A. No. 938/98 and O.A. No. 322/98 were filed by Shri J.S. Arora & Pramod Kumar and Mrs. Vishalakshi for seeking revision in their seniority from the date of the initial appointment on daily wage basis which has been rejected by the Petitioner vide letter dated 24/1/1997. On 27/11/2000, CAT allowed OA Nos. 938/98 & 322/98 and directed the Petitioner to count the services rendered by the Respondents w.e.f. the date on which the Respondents were appointed on ad hoc basis. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that as the concerned respondents were appointed on daily wage basis, their seniority could not have been counted from the dates of their appointment but from the respective dates on which their services had been regularized. The learned counsel would contend that having regard to the fact that at the relevant point of time, there did not exist any sanctioned post which, so far as respondents are concerned, came into being subsequently, the learned Tribunal must be held to have erred both in law as also on fact in passing the impugned judgment. In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed on The Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 0rs. JT 1990 (2) SC 264 and State of Weat Bengal & On. v. Aghore Nath Dev & Ors., JT 1993(2) SC 598.