NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE CHHOTU CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PRASAR BHARTI, PREVIOUSLY ALL INDIA RADIO, AKASHVANI, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner before this Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was engaged as casual typist in the Patna Office of All India Radio with effect from 16th June, 1992. His engagement is said to have been discontinued with effect from 1st October, 2000. He challenged his disengagement by filing Original Application (O.A. No. 447 of 2002) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short, 'the Tribunal '). The original application was contested by the respondents. They set up a plea in the written statement that the appointment of the original applicant was on daily wage basis and since the sanctioned posts existed, his appointment came to be discontinued. it was also stated that the applicant could not be regularized as the vacancies have to be filled up through open selection. The petitioner relied upon the scheme for regularization formulated by the Department of Personnel and Training in the year 1993 and it was submitted before the Tribunal that he is covered by said scheme and entitled to regularization. The Tribunal, by its order dated 6th August, 2004, allowed the Original Application and quashed and set aside the verbal termination order of the applicant dated 1st October, 2000 and directed the authorities to re -engage the petitioner as casual typist. Certain incidental directions were also given by the Tribunal; it was, however, observed that the applicant would not be entitled for back wages.

(3.) THE order of the Tribunal passed on 6th August, 2004 was challenged by the present respondent by filing a writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 510 of 2005 before this Court. This court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 11th May, 2006 and set aside the order of the Tribunal by holding that it was completely bad and unsustainable. This is what the Division Bench said in the order dated 11th May, 2006: