PARMANAND TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the claim petition filed by the petitioners was rejected. Before filing the writ petition, a review application was also filed, which, too, has been rejected. The review application has been rejected only on the ground that, on the garb of review, petitioners were seeking to re- argue the case. Review application having been dismissed on a sound principle of law, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not made any submission to point out defect, if any, in the order rejecting the review application.

(2.) THE facts of the case, as appear from the record, are that the petitioners were discharging duties attached to Group 'D' posts without being appointed as Group 'D' employees. Their engagement was brought to an end principally on the ground that the work discharged by Group 'D' employees should be outsourced. In the circumstances, the claim petition was filed contending that, without passing an order of termination of engagement, engagement of the petitioners could not be brought to an end and that, in any event, such an action is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Since, at no point of time, petitioners became Government employees, provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India did not apply to them.

(3.) PRINCIPALLY for the reasons as above, the claim petition before the Tribunal failed. We have not been persuaded to take a different view. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, it has come to light that efforts are being made to give appointments to Group 'D' posts and, for that matter, on 3rd June, 2012, an advertisement has been published. A copy of the said advertisement has been brought on record by filing an affidavit. The said advertisement clearly indicates that, at present, a policy decision has been taken to engage, on regular basis, Group 'D' employees. There is no impediment on the part of the Government in altering its policy. The earlier policy of 2006 stands altered six years' later. Because the policy has been altered six years' later, it cannot be said that the earlier policy was a non-starter.