INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Vs. TARAMONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have gone through the draft judgment and order prepared by my learned Brother, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar, with respect I am unable to agree to His Lordship's conclusion. The reasons of my different conclusion is given hereunder.

(2.) The respondents, before this Court who' were successful before the learned Tribunal approached with their grievance that they and/or their predecessor- in-interest were similarly placed and circumstanced with those of the applicants of OA 343 of 1995 (Sambhu II & 32 Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.). They were and/or are working under the applicants and they should be given the same benefit as has been given by the applicants (respondent before the learned Tribunal) in terms of the judgment, and order of the learned Tribunal dated 31st January 1996 passed in the said original application, 343 of 1995. The respondents were successful to pursue the learned Tribunal that they have been working as casual labour under the respondents and were categorized as daily rated workers like the applicants of OA 343 of 1995. They had been discharging same nature of duty as performed by the regular employees of full time post for 25 and 30 years. Those applicants who retired from services from respective dates as have been indicated in their application. Unfortunately on retirement no terminal benefit was granted as has been granted to other workers who filed earlier application. Some of the respondents herein are the widows and having interest in the service benefit of their deceased husband. The learned Tribunal on fact came to finding that earlier judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31st January 1996 reached its finality as no appeal was preferred therefrom rather review application filed as against the same was dismissed. Subsequently the said judgment and order was implemented carrying out direction given therein. On the aforesaid factual position only question remaining before the learned Tribunal was whether the respondents before us were similarly placed and circumstanced with the applicants in the earlier matter or not and whether they should be given benefit of the said judgment and order. The learned Tribunal on fact found that the respondents before us also stand on the similar footing with that of the applicants of the earlier application as they were deprived of the similar benefits. In the application before us there is no challenge against the aforesaid finding of the similarity. We can not upset fact finding of the learned Tribunal in exercise of power of judicial review in absence of allegation of perverse fact finding. Before the learned Tribunal stand taken by the petitioner before us that the respondents were not similarly placed and such contention has been overruled. Further stand taken before the learned Tribunal that the respondents herein are governed by the Circular being No. 51015 dated 10th September 1993. It is contended that the said Circular was not placed before the learned Tribunal previously in earlier application. I find such contention is incorrect factually as the review application was filed & placing and relying on aforesaid document and the learned Tribunal while dealing with the review application considered the said Circular and found the same was not helpful to the case of the applicants. Hence the sheet anchor of the contention of the petitioners was not accepted and negatively decided earlier. I think the same cannot be agitated before us as the same is hit by the principle of res judicata.

(3.) Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Counsel, contends that no appointment either regularization or otherwise can be made deviating from the rules and scheme and in support of his contention he has relied on large number of decisions of Supreme Court. I think the proposition laid down in those cases are not disputed but here the issue is whether the respondent- before us stand on similar footing with those who were successful in the earlier application and got the benefit or not. I have already noted the Tribunal has found this fact, therefore, logical conclusion is that there cannot be any discrimination amongst the equally placed persons. In support of the contention of the applicant Uma Devi's case, 2006(3) SCC 415, has been cited before us. We are unable to apply this judgment firstly when the impugned judgment was passed this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court was not delivered. Even it is taken into consideration I find Uma Devi's case was decided on the factual aspect that the daily rated workers were engaged contrary to recruitment rules and the claim for absorption was denied ignoring the recruitment rules. Here the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties previously decided that the employees like applicants as well as the applicants in the previous applications were entitled to be regularized under the scheme floated by the department, as well as the law then subsisting. When earlier judgement of learned Tribunal has been accepted, direction given by the learned Tribunal has become the law relating to regularization of this kind of employees. This judgment was rendered upon deciding all questions and the same is accepted naturally it has become rule and/or law on the same field. If Mr. Sengupta's argument is accepted then in effect earlier judgment of the learned Tribunal which has since reached finality on acceptance would be nugatory and/or infructuous. Therefore, the contention of the respondents in my view does not stand to logic that the relief granted by the learned Tribunal in the present matter is contrary to recruitment rules. Learned Tribunal has correctly concluded that there cannot be any discrimination amongst the persons who are equally placed and the learned Tribunal has rightly protected the respondent. I therefore, dismiss the application and affirm the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.