(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to, in fact, challenge the order dated 17.11.2011 of Central Administrative Tribunal at Ahmedabad, in OA No.66 of 2009 with MA No.352 of 2009, whereby the main prayer of the respondents to set aside the impugned decision of the petitioner herein to cancel the order regularizing the respondents herein was granted with all consequential benefits. There is no dispute about the facts that the respondents herein, originally appointed as casual labour and granted temporary status, were regularized as 'Mazdoor' vide order dated 2.3.2001 in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200/- with effect from 1.10.2000, against newly sanctioned posts. Subsequently, against 59 additional posts of Telephone Mechanic sanctioned on 18.5.2001, by order dated 28.6.2001, they were absorbed on the posts of Telephone Mechanic in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/-. In that order dated 28.6.2001, date of absorption was mentioned to be 1.7.2001 in place of 1.10.2000 from which they were regularized as 'Mazdoors' vide order dated 2.3.2001, as stated above, and the said change of date was effected without even issuing show cause notice.
2. It was argued by learned counsel, Mr.Gaurang H. Bhatt, appearing for the petitioner that order dated 2.3.2001 regularizing the services of the respondents was not, in fact, implemented and impliedly kept in abeyance, and hence, the petitioner was entitled to cancel it without affording to the respondents herein an opportunity of being heard. It was further conceded even before the Tribunal by learned counsel for the present petitioner that there was no specific order by which the order dated 2.3.2001 had been cancelled. As noted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, it is next to impossible that a person who is absorbed in a lower pay scale could also be promoted immediately to a higher pay scale on the same date itself. The Tribunal has observed that DPC was held on 30.3.2001 for the specific purpose of considering regularization of temporary status 'Mazdoors' and the date for that was determined to be 1.10.2000. That date could not have been unilaterally changed later while absorbing the respondents on the higher post. Therefore, the argument that the subsequent promotion of the respondents wiped out the effect of the initial order of absorption could not find favour. Since we are in complete agreement with the reasoning and the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the petition is summarily dismissed.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (N.V.Anjaria, J.) *malek Top