BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. R K SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE , the issue involved in both the petitions is common, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) BY way of Special Civil Application No. 5778 of 2008, the petitioner -Union of India has challenged the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Dated : 24.06.2007, rendered in O.A. 195 of 2006, whereas, by way of Special Civil Application No. 5383 of 2008, the petitioner -Union has challenged the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Dated 12.03.2003, rendered in O.A. No. 367 of 1997 and in Review Application No. 29 of 2006.

(3.) THE case of the original applicant before the Tribunal was that he joined the services with the petitioner -Union in the year 1980 as casual and he worked continuously upto 1981. Pursuant thereto, his services came to be terminated due to non -availability of work. Somewhere in 1990, an advertisement was given in newspapers by the petitioner -Union to re -employ the old ones or the fresh persons. The original applicant was re -employed w.e.f. 01.01.1990 upto 31.01.1991 and was posted at SDO(T), Billimora, from where he was transferred to Vapi in February, 1991. According to the original applicant he was in service continuously from 1990 onwards and there was no break. He, therefore, preferred O.A. 204 of 1993, seeking temporary status and regularization of his services. Said application came to be disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to the petitioner -Union to consider the case of the original applicant within six months. The original applicant made a representation on 22.04.1993 and as no decision was taken thereon, as per the order of the Tribunal, he issued a notice to the petitioner -Union through Advocate on 04.11.1993. Thereafter, the original applicant made several representations repeatedly, but, same were of no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner -Union pursued the remedies available to them under the law, wherein, the impugned orders came to be passed. Despite that, since, the petitioner -Union did not consider the case of the original applicant for regularization of services etc., the present petitions are preferred.