ASHOK RAGHOBA AMBRE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) Petitioner was employed with respondent No. 2. Services of the petitioner came to be terminated. The petitioner filed Petition No. 661/1992 before this Court which was disposed of on January 28, 2005. By that order the termination was set aside. Learned Bench was pleased to observe that the petitioner is entitled to the status of permanent employee of the Corporation. Against this order the employer/Respondent No. 2 approached the Supreme Court. Leave was granted and the] appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court by the judgment Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Ashok R. Ambre,2008 1 CLR 864 . What is relevant is paragraph 23 of the judgment, which reads as under:

(3.) From the judgment it would be clear that the Supreme Court held that because of the order of termination is bad, ipso facto does not mean that the petitioner herein would be said to be in permanent employment or could be granted permanency. The reinstatement for wrongful termination would be distinct from treating the person as permanent. The directions in paragraph 23 which are reproduced earlier were considering that the petitioner completed more than 20 years and his case for permanency be considered sympathetically. The requirement of age was waived. Requirement of qualification was insisted upon, however, at the same time, if there was power to relax the qualification, it was directed that, that aspect would be considered for waiving the requirement of qualification.