UNION OF INDIA Vs. R. K. MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeks to assail the order dtd. 26/2/2003 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 1611/2002. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal, by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Harish Chander Bhatia And Ors. 1995 (2) SCC 48, has allowed the original application filed by the respondent and has consequently directed that his initial appointment to the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service, (hereinafter referred as 'DANIPS') under Rule 25(3) of the DANIPS Rules (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules') be included towards his service for computing his seniority. This direction, we find, was issued by taking into account the fact that the respondent had worked in the same purportedly ad hoc capacity for over 6 years.

(2.) On the last date, in view of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that the matter was squarely covered against the petitioner not only by the decision in Harish Chander Bhatia (Supra) but also by a subsequent decision dtd. 24/12/2014 of a Co-ordinate Bench in W. P. (C) 3626/2014 titled Rajan Bhagat v. Union of India & Anr. had granted time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain instructions.

(3.) Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, while not denying that the respondent though purportedly appointed on ad hoc basis had, like the petitioner in Rajan Bhagat (Supra), continued to serve in the DANIPS for over six years that too on the basis of requests made by the petitioner/department for extending his services, submits that the aforesaid two decisions would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the respondent in the present case was appointed under Rule 25 (3) of the Rules on ad hoc basis / under a local arrangement and not under Rule 25(1) and (2) of the Rules under where the petitioner in Rajan Bhagat (Supra) was appointed.