UNION OF INDIA Vs. HRIDAY RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has taken instructions. The order passed by the Tribunal has been implemented subject to the present writ petition. He has, therefore, pressed the petition.

(2.) We have heard the submissions of learned counsel. The petitioner-Union of India assails the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.100/1722/2015. The Tribunal allowed the said Original Application and directed the petitioner herein to regularize the services of the respondent w.e.f. 17.06.2011, i.e., when the post of Canteen Helper became available, after relaxing the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Recruitment rules.

(3.) The respondent was engaged as a casual labourer by the petitioner-Canteen Management Committee during the period 1974-76. His services were thereafter disengaged without any reason. Ultimately, his services were re-engaged as a casual labourer w.e.f. 06.02.1986. Since then, he has been continuously working without a break. He sought regularization and for that purpose, he preferred OA No.1537/98. Vide order dated 02.02.1999 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was directed to consider the respondent's case for regularization w.e.f. 06.02.1986, by treating him as a deemed Government servant as per OM dated 11.10.1991. However, his services were not regularized. The respondent then preferred OA No.2981/2002. The Tribunal once again directed the petitioner to finalize his case for regularization of his services vide order dated 18.11.2002. Once again, the respondent's services were not regularized. Consequently, he again preferred OA No.2772/2003, wherein he challenged an order dated 07.04.2003 passed by the petitioner. That order rejected the respondent's representation wherein he sought regularization. The said order dated 07.04.2003 passed by the petitioner was set aside, and the Tribunal again vide order dated 02.08.2004 directed that the respondent's claim for regularization of his services be considered.