UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANCHUI JANIKHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI for short). Also heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dtd. 30/11/2017, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in O.A. No. 040/00139/2016 as well as order dt. 9/8/2018, by which the said learned Tribunal had not entertained review application no. 3/2018, on the ground of delay. It may be mentioned that the respondent herein was the applicant before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) In brief, the case of the respondent before the learned Tribunal was that on 18/10/1994, he was appointed as Transmission Executive (Dialect and Translation) (hereinafter referred to as "TrEx D&T" for brevity) in the All India Radio (AIR), Dibrugarh on casual/contract basis. It is projected that by a communication dtd. 14/7/1999, the Station Director, All India Radio (AIR for short) had informed the Director General of AIR that the Staff Selection Commission, Guwahati had given their no objection to make local recruitment and it was further mentioned that as there are a number of TrEx D&T having requisite qualification and working on casual basis for a number of years, their services could have been regularized. The respondent along with seven others had filed a writ petition, which was numbered as W.P.(C) 644(AP)/2001, inter alia, praying for direction upon the petitioners herein to regularize their service. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dtd. 14/11/2003, holding that some of the respondents do not have the requisite qualification of Bachelor's Degree in Hindi, while others were not even graduates, they were not qualified under the recruitment rules. However, it was provided that as the respondents had already put in more than 10 (ten) years of service, it was desirable that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 herein would consider the case of the respondent and others sympathetically and prepare a scheme for giving some financial consistency and assurance to the respondent and other writ petitioners in the said case and accommodate them in some posts suitable to their qualification and experience. By a communication dtd. 6/1/2006, the respondent and others were informed that there was no scheme in the AIR for regularization of their services and therefore, the directions for framing a scheme as per the hereinbefore referred judgment and order dtd. 14/11/2003, could not be complied with.