(1.) The Original Application filed by the petitioners before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal as against the order dated 19th December, 1992 disposing of the representation of one of the petitioners and also the order dated 22nd June, 1992 directing regular appointment of the petitioners in the posts of Lower Division Assistant effective only from 9th April, 1992, was dismissed. The said order of the learned Tribunal is under challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) The petitioners herein were initially appointed in the Ministry of Urban Development in Group 'D' category post. However, since there were vacancies in the post of LDC, the petitioners herein were promoted on ad hoc basis to the said post of LDC in the year 1981-82 in which post they continued in the same capacity for about seven years. As the petitioners continued to remain in those posts on ad hoc capacity, they filed OA No.668/1988, 914/1988, 985/1988 and 1010/1988. The said Original Applications were heard together and they were disposed of by a common judgment and order in the following manner:
(3.) An office order was issued on 22nd June, 1992 by the respondents whereby ad hoc Lower Division Clerks including the petitioners were appointed on regular basis to the said posts of LDCs in the cadre of Central Secretariat Clerical Service Cadre and the said regularisation was given effect from 9th April, 1992. The petitioners were aggrieved by their regularisation against the post of LDCs only with effect from 9th April, 1992 and not with effect from 29th April, 1981, which is the initial date of their appointment on ad hoc basis to the aforesaid post of LDCs. They submitted a representation which was considered and the respondents rejected the same turning down their request for regularisation with effect from the date of their ad hoc officiation i.e. 29th April, 1981. The petitioners filed Original Application which was registered as OA No.2699/1993 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of their regularisation from a prospective date and not giving retrospective effect thereto. On 20th July, 1999 the aforesaid Original Application was dismissed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioners.