DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Dharmendra Kumar has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (herein after referred to as Tribunal) whereby O.A. No. 3533/2014, has been dismissed on the ground of res judicata.

(2.) It is stated that the Tribunal has committed a grave error by holding that the O.A. is barred by res-judicata, without appreciating the facts of the case on merits and ignoring that a fresh cause of action arose due to passing of order dated 05.03.2013 by which the juniors of the petitioner were regularised and confirmed whereas the petitioner was left out. Even otherwise, the cause of action is a recurring cause of action and denial of the relief on the ground of the res-judicata in the present case is wrong and unjust. The respondents cannot be allowed to perpetuate and commit illegality by granting benefit of regularisation to those junior to the petitioner. The petitioner has worked as a temporary employee for the last 21-22 years. Accordingly, he is legally entitled to regularisation in the backdrop of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon letter F. No. CCIT/CCA/KNP/24/2008-09/G-73 dated 19.12.2008 issued on the basis of the instructions vide DOPT O.M. No.49019/1/2006-Esst.(C) dated 11.12.2006 which stipulates that the government and their instruments should take steps to regularise as one time measure contractual employees who duly qualify in terms of statutory requirements and have completed 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is legally entitled to the benefit of the policy letter dated 19.12.2008 issued by the respondents. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.8081/2012 tilted as Union of India v. Raj Kumar wherein it has been held that a senior cannot be ignored for a benefit if such benefit is conferred on his junior.

(3.) The petitioner had sought the following relief in the O.A. No. 3533/2014:-