VALSAMMA MAMACHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition, the petitioner impugns order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1048 of 1996 dismissing her claim for regularisation of her services in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk from the date of her appointment w. e. f. 7th June, 1974 and to grant her incidental benefits arising therefrom.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner's case is that she was appointed as temporary Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on establishment of Southern command, "a" Branch, Pune on probation for a period of two years w. e. f. 14th october, 1971. Likewise many others, she was directly appointed and was not a candidate recruited through employment exchange. She was transferred to college of Military Engineering, Pune, against regular vacancy. She completed the probation period satisfactorily and was lateron confirmed in the grade under office Order dated 25th November, 1991. She was assigned benefits of quasi-permanency in the grade of LDC from 14th October, 1974. Subsequently, she was informed under letter dated 1st October, 1990 that her services were being regularised with prospective date but the previous service will not count for seniority or for promotion to the higher post though it would count for the purpose of pay, leave and other benefits. Still, however, by yet another letter dated 31st December, 1991 she was informed by respondent No. 2 that her name was wrongly included in the list of employees whose services were to be regulated. Therefore, her name was deemed to have been "excluded" from the list of 98 employees whose services were to be regularised. She made representation to respondent No. 1. She awaited the result of her representation but her request for regularisation as well as promotion came to be rejected vide letter dated 2 () th september, 1996.

(3.) The petitioner approached the Tribunal to seek relief of declaration that her services may be deemed as regularised from the date she was appointed and had completed the probation period. She urged for parity with other similarly placed employees whose services were regularised as a result of the directions given in Original Application Nos. 315 of 1993 and 322 of 1987. The Tribunal observed that benefits of the said judgment could be extended to the petitioner but rejected her claim on the ground of delay and laches. The Tribunal held that the petitioner committed inordinate delay in seeking relief and was not diligent in pursuing the remedy. Consequently, only on the ground of limitation, delay and laches her Original Application No. 1048 of 1996 came to be dismissed.