UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. DEVENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 179/2011 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application preferred by the respondent.

(2.) Assailing the order dated 21.02.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent was engaged as part time casual labourer and therefore he had no vested right to occupy this post. He further submits that the complete ban was imposed by the petitioners for appointing casual labourers after 1.9.1993 and the instructions to this effect were not being followed at certain Post Offices and realising this fact, the Postal Directorate had issued fresh directions vide letter No. 4-4/2009/PCC dated 19.11.2010 thereby notifying a complete ban on the engagement of casual labourers w.e.f. 1.12.2010. It is in compliance of the said directions of Postal Directorate, he submits that the services of the respondent were dispensed with on 10.4.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that it was the policy decision taken by the Government putting a complete ban on engagement of casual labourer on or after 1.9.1993, based on which fresh instructions were issued by the Postal Directorate on 19.11.2010 and therefore, the petitioners had rightly taken a decision to dispense with the services of the respondent on the post of part time casual labourer. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent can not take the benefit of the error committed by the petitioner department which was subsequently rectified by the Department by issuing a fresh notification dated 19.11.2010. He also argued that the respondent has no legal right to claim appointment on the post of Gramin Dak Sewak when he had no right to continue on the same.

(3.) We have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them.