UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH R. CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Ms P.J. Davawala, learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5 th September 2013 passed in Original Application No.290 of 1999. The petitioners are aggrieved by the direction given by the Tribunal that the temporary status ought to have been awarded to the respondent from the date when he completed 240 days of service and the other part from which the petitioners are aggrieved is that the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent in the next available vacancy of the Driver subject to the seniority, suitability and as per the rules and regulations.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has taken a correct view of law by issuing appropriate directions with which we would not like to interfere as the respondent was entitled for temporary status after he completed 240 days. So far as the argument of Ms Davawala that the respondent was a Casual Driver and his claim for regularisation cannot be accepted is concerned, in view of the fact that for a period of 10 years the work of Driver was taken from him and therefore he is entitled for being considered on the post of Driver. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Scheme was not available for Driver, but looking to the fact that the respondent has worked for 10 years as Driver, he was entitled to be considered for regularisation on the post of Driver. Merely because, the Department has granted the temporary status from 1999 and made the employee as regular rojamdar cannot affect his right to which he is legally entitled to and, in our opinion, he was entitled for temporary status after completion of 240 days and consideration of claim for regularisation as Driver as he has worked for 10 years. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.