UNION OF INDIA Vs. C A T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE contentions have been raised in this petition by the learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for the petitioners:- (1) The learned Tribunal has committed an error in accepting the original application filed by the original applicant and directed the present petitioners to regularise his services on the post of Assistant Superintendent with effect from 28. 2. 85 and grant him actual financial benefits of pay fixation when the original applicant failed to pass suitable test. (2) Against the original applicant, number of ACRs were there between 1985 to 1999 and actually he was punished in 1999, therefore, such a person cannot be given regularisation. (3) There was a mistake on the part of Union of India in regularising the services of Mohan Singh and Sadanand on the post of Assistant Superintendent, therefore, such a mistake cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by regularising the services of the applicant.

(2.) FROM the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has extended the benefit of regularisation to the original applicant on the ground that the junior to the applicant namely, Mohan Singh and Sadanand, were regularised in view of the subsequent letter dated 17. 11. 94/9. 12. 94 which was also reproduced by the Tribunal in its order.

(3.) IN case of Dr. Pyari Mohan (supra), the petitioner was an ad hoc appointee for a long period and on facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because he remained on ad hoc basis, that would not entitle him for regularisation.