BALWAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 473/2010. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners herein and some others had filed the said original application seeking a direction being issued to the respondents for regularization of their services. The petitioners were appointed as casual workers/labourers on different dates between 1998-2000. They were working with the respondents in different offices under the Ministry of Home Affairs at Delhi. By virtue of the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the petitioners could not seek regularization on the strength of the Supreme Court decision in the case of the State of Karnatka v. Umadevi, 2006 4 SCC 1, inasmuch as the said relief granted by the Supreme Court was one-time measure and was subject to the condition that the persons who were working as casual workers should have been appointed against sanctioned posts and, secondly, that they should have completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 i.e., the date of the judgment decision in Umadevi .

(2.) It is an admitted position that none of the petitioners herein had 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006. Consequently, they could not have had the benefit of the decision in Umadevi .

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to another Supreme Court decision namely State of Karnatka and Ors. v. M.L. Kesari and Ors., 2010 9 SCC 247. She submitted that the directions given by the Supreme Court in Umadevi have been 'liberalized' and that the petitioners herein would fall within those 'liberalized' directions. Unfortunately, for the petitioners, on going through the said decision in M.L. Kesari , we do not find any such 'liberalization'. The Supreme Court in M.L. Kesari observed as under:-