UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP Vs. M.HABEEBULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union Territory of Lakshadweep and its officers has filed this Original Petition challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA No.639/2017 by which direction had been issued to regularize the applicant/respondent herein in service as driver, the regularization to take effect from the date when the order is issued. The petitioners who were respondents before the Tribunal contended that the applicant was not entitled for regularization as he was employed as a NMR driver on casual basis by the Principal of a college and the post was not a sanctioned post. They also placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. The Tribunal however having relied on the judgments in Nihal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [2013 KHC 4607] and Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand [(2018) 8 SCC 238] observed that the circumstances in the original application is more or less the same as examined by the Apex Court in the cases referred above and held that the applicant was eligible for regularization in the post in which he was working in 1995.

(2.) Learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel Sri.S.Manu appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (supra). The definite case of the petitioners/respondents was that the applicant/respondent was working as a driver on a casual basis. But his appointment was not in a sanctioned post. It is argued that the judgments relied upon by the Tribunal are distinguishable on facts. In Nihal Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court was considering the fate of persons who were recruited as police officers invoking the power u/s 17 of the Police Act , 1861 (Punjab). It is pointed out that a distinction had been drawn by the Apex Court in view of the fact that the appointments were made for meeting an exigency and it was held that the initial appointment of the appellants cannot be categorized as irregular as it was made in accordance with the statutory procedure contemplated under the Police Act . It is argued that the said case was decided on its own facts. It is also argued that in Narendra Kumar Tiwari's case (supra), a claim for regularization was made by daily wage or contract workers in different posts on the ground that they had put in more than 10 years of service and were therefore entitled to be regularized on the basis of the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra). The State took up a contention that the workers had not put in 10 years of service and therefore they could not be regularized. It was the contention of the employees that they were denied the benefit of Regularization Rules of 2015. It was observed that the State of Jharkhand continued with irregular appointments for almost a decade after Umadevi's case (supra) and whenever required, the services of the irregularly appointed employees were terminated which is nothing but an exploitation of employees by not giving them the benefits of regularization. It was further observed that if a strict and literal interpretation of Umadevi's case (supra) is taken into consideration, no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could be regularized since the State has come into existence only on 15th November, 2000 and the cut off date was fixed as 10 th April, 2006. It was therefore argued that the aforesaid judgment had also been rendered on the special facts of the case, when it is held that Regularization Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and those persons who had completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Rules ought to be given the benefit of service rendered by them. It is therefore argued that the said judgment cannot be taken as a reason to avoid the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi's case (supra).

(3.) Learned counsel also placed reliance on a few other judgments.