SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 2 and 3 in O.A. No. 180/00347 of 2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal have filed this Original Petition aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.2017 allowing the O.A.

(2.) The O.A. was filed by the second respondent who was working as a Lady Warden under the respondents. She had joined the Sports Authority of India (SAI) on casual basis on 16.3.199 Initially she was appointed at the Regional Centre, Bangalore. In September, 1992, she was transferred to Alappuzha and then to Thiruvananthapuram in 2013. According to her, though the appointment was on casual basis, it was continuous and unbroken and therefore she was entitled to temporary status and regularization as provided in the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme ('Scheme' for short) issued by the Government of India. Her case was that she had a total service of about 23 years. She approached the CAT aggrieved by the non-consideration of her representation.

(3.) The claim of the second respondent was contested by the petitioner. It was admitted that she was presently working as a Lady Warden on casual basis at SAI Lakshmibhai National College for Physical Education, Trivandrum. They also admitted that the second respondent had joined the Regional Centre at Bangalore on 16.1992. Their case was that, when the question of her regularization was considered, it was found that though she was appointed on 16.1992, her appointment was not against a sanctioned post and that due to overage, her case was not considered for regularization. It was also contended that, though the second respondent was working as on 10.9.1993, her service was not continuous. She had no continuous service for atleast 240 days in a year prior to 10.9.199 Therefore, she was not eligible for the grant of temporary promotion.