LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-320

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. RAJBALA

Decided On May 10, 2012
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Appellant
V/S
RAJBALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government of NCT of Delhi is aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2002 passed in OA 2079/2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the respondent's Original Application seeking regularization as a Group `D' employee with the Directorate of Education, has been allowed.

(2.) THE Tribunal, after hearing the parties, arrived at the following conclusion:-

(3.) ANOTHER issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that at the time when the respondent was appointed in 1984, her age was around 31-1/2 years and this was beyond the age limit of 25 years which was stipulated for general category employees. However, the respondent, being a member of the Scheduled Caste, would automatically get a relaxation of five years, which would enable her to be employed till the age of 30 years. In the present case, the respondent would have been overage by 1-1/2 years. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there have been several instances even in respect of appointments post 07.05.1985 where age relaxation has been granted to the extent of even about 10 years. For example, he has pointed out that in the case of one Sheela Devi, the age relaxation granted was of about nine years inasmuch as she, being a general category candidate, was about 34 years of age on the date of her appointment. ANOTHER instance is of a Scheduled Caste employee, Ram Murti, who was overage by nine years being 39 years old on the date of her appointment. Yet, relaxation was granted by the petitioner. There are several other cases of age relaxation, which we need not go into. It would be sufficient to say that the age bar is not sacrosanct insofar as the petitioner is concerned and relaxation has been given from time to time. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is, therefore, no reason as to why the respondent, who has been in employment for such a long period, should not be given the age relaxation which has also been given to others, who had even worse cases.