UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANESH ARMUGAM NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this Petition, the Petitioners-Union of India has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, mumbai Bench, Mumbai dated 17th October, 2000 by which order the Tribunal allowed the Original Application No. 656 of 1996 preferred by the Respondent herein. By the impugned order the Tribunal directed the Petitioners herein to reinstate the Applicant i. e. the Respondent herein back in service though without backwages.

(2.) THE Respondent was appointed as a Driver on a purely temporary basis and accordingly the appointment order was issued to him in that behalf. The appointment order is produced at page 21 in the compilation of the above Petition which is dated 14th March, 1989. The appointment order clearly states that the appointment is purely temporary and is liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons on one month's notice. Subsequently by an order dated 3rd september 1993, the services of the Respondent were terminated. Prior to such termination, the Respondent was served with one month's notice as required by rules and, accordingly on completion of said one month period, subsequently after sometime, by an order dated 3rd September, 1993 the services of the respondent were terminated. The Respondent, thereafter preferred an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal being Original Application No. 656 of 1996 and by the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the said termination order passed by the Petitioners without backwages.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Petitioners Ms. Bharucha submitted that the appointment of the Respondent was purely of temporary nature and that the respondent was appointed on a temporarily created post which was subsequently abolished and, therefore, the Respondent has no right to continue on the said post. She further submitted that even though the order of termination was passed as back as on 26th April. 1993, the Respondent preferred the Original application No. 656 of 1996 on 6th June, 1996. It is therefore submitted by her that the said Application of the Respondent was obviously time barred and, therefore, the same was required to be dismissed even on the ground of delay, laches and limitation. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the Tribunal has decided the point which was not even in issue before it and has accordingly committed an error of law in passing the impugned order.