SIBTE HASAN Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRIOR to 1981, for a certain period, Staff Selection Commission was not functioning. In the Income Tax Department, at that time, there was a need for engaging Stenographers. The need was so pressing that the Income Tax Department, with the consent of the Staff Selection Commission, instead of waiting for the Staff Selection Commission to select Stenographers, selected Stenographers and appointed the petitioner. Such appointment was given to the petitioner on 11th February, 1981 with stipulation that the appointment shall come to an end, no sooner Staff Selection Commission makes selection of Stenographers. On 26th April, 2001, accepting the representation of the petitioner, who was continuing to serve until then, petitioner was regularized, but with effect from 11th February, 1981. In the meantime, various similarly situated persons came before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and contended that they should be regularized with effect from the date they were initially appointed. Diverse orders were passed on those applications. In the circumstances, the matter came before the Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad. It declared that, inasmuch as, people have been made to work continuously for a long period of time despite selection of Stenographers subsequent to their initial engagement by the Staff Selection Commission, they should be deemed to have been appointed on the date of their initial appointment, provided the order of regularization had been passed before the Full Bench considered the matter. This order of the Full Bench was passed much before 26th April, 2001. The petitioner, therefore, cannot take advantage of the said order of Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad. The fact that the petitioner was regularized on 26th April, 2001, in view of the said order of Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad, will give him the status of a substantive employee on and from the date of his regularisation and not from the date of his initial appointment. The Tribunal, in the order impugned in the present writ petition, has merely repeated the same.

(2.) THAT being the situation, there appears to be no scope of interference in the present writ petition, inasmuch as, the pronouncement of the Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad is not under challenge in the present writ petition. We make it clear that the observations, as above, are only for the purpose of bringing on record the pronouncement made by the Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad, which was binding on the Tribunal, when the Tribunal considered the case of the petitioner in the three original applications dealt with by the order under challenge. We make it further clear that we have not gone into the question of seniority of the persons, as accepted by the Department, to the effect, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has been placed immediately below those who had been appointed on recommendation by the Staff Selection Commission in the years 1991, 1992 & 1993.