UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARI NATH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri D. B. Yadav, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16th January, 2006 rejecting the review application as well as the judgment and order dated 21st March, 2005 passed in Original Application No. 1300 of 2000 filed by respondent No. 1, Hari Nath Yadav, which had been allowed by issuing a direction for re-engagement and regulariza-tion of his services in Group-D.

(3.) THREE things remain undisputed, (a) that the respondent No. 1 had not worked subsequent to 1987, (b) he approached the learned Tribunal after expiry of 13 years, and (c) the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by respondent No. 1 only giving reference to its earlier judgment and order passed in the case of Jamuna (supra) and not on merits. In case, the respondent No. 1 had not been in service subsequent to 1987, the question of grant of the relief of regularization would not be arise or could not be considered by the learned Tribunal, as it is settled legal proposition that relief of regularisation can be claimed by a person, who is working continuously for a very long period and is not being made permanent. In such eventualities, the action of the employer becomes arbitrary and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person not in service can never claim his re-engagement or regularization, unless he has first challenged the order of dis-engagement/termination, as held by the Apex Court in the case of H. P. Housing Board v. Om Pal and others, 1997 (1) SCC 269, and Ram Chanderand others v. Additional District Magistrate and others', 1998 (1) SCC 183.