UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8457, 8458 and 8489-CAT of 2000 as common questions of law are involved in all these petitions.

(2.) The private respondents were working as Signal Khalasi with the petitioner-Indian Railways. On 5.9.1986, they were given ad hoc promotion on the post of Material Checking Clerk (hereinafter referred to as "the MCC"), in the grade of Rs. 260-400 on purely ad hoc basis against existing vacancies (Annexure P-1). In the order of promotion (Annexure P-1), it was specifically provided that the order of promotion will not confer upon them any right for future promotion. They will be reverted on arrival of selected candidates. On being so promoted, the respondents continued on the promoted posts. Thereafter, they participated in the viva voce test and were duly placed on provisional panel of MCC by order dated 24.10.1997 (Annexure P-5). The names of the respondents appear at Sr. Nos. 10, 11 and 12 in the order (Annexure P- 5). The aforesaid selection had been made on the basis of the Viva Voce Test conducted on 20.5.1996 and 24.5.1996. On 4.11.1997, the services of the respondents were regularised as MCC by order (Annexure P-6). In the meantime, the petitioner had issued a policy of regularisation on 8.5.1987 under Item No. 53/86. In the aforesaid policy decision, it was provided as under:-

(3.) According to this policy decision, all the staff working continuously as MCC on ad hoc basis for a period of three years or more, were to be considered for regularisation on the basis of their service record and viva voce. Since these respondents had, however, not completed three years service, they were not granted the benefit of this policy. The respondents, therefore, represented to the petitioner. Since no relief had been granted, the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing the O.As. During the pendency of the proceedings in the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner granted the benefit of service to the respondents w.e.f. 10.8.1988. The respondents filed the OAs claiming the benefit of service with effect from the date they were initially appointed on 5.9.1986. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by judgment dated 11.2.2000 (Annexure P-8) allowed the applications and directed the petitioner to grant the normal benefits to the respondents like seniority, fixation of pay etc. with effect from the date they were promoted on ad hoc basis i.e. 5.9.1986. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid decision by filing these three writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.