Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36285 of 2014 Petitioner :- Satya Pal Singh And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Kumar Singh,S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,F.A.Ansari,R.B.Singhal,Saurabh Srivastava
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Sri Sudeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 11th March 2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred as "Tribunal") in Original Application No. 382 of 2007 whereby Tribunal has rejected aforesaid Original Application.
3. Petitioners were appointed as Lab Assistants in Ordinance Factory School, in 1971. Posts of teachers were sanctioned by Ordinance Factory Board (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) in the year 1979 for first time, but no sanction for Lab Assistant was given by the Board. Thereafter, services of three Lab Assistants including petitioner's were terminated w.e.f 01.04.1981. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 6912 of 1981 before this Court wherein an interim order was passed on 18.11.1981 which reads as under:-
“Heard counsel for the parties. In spite of time repeatedly granted no counter affidavit has been filed so far. The respondents may file counter-affidavit to this application within three weeks; Petitioners may file rejoinder-affidavit within ten days thereafter.
In the meantime the respondents are restrained from appointing the person as Laboratory Assistant on the post of the petitioners in the college. They are also restrained from interfering in the working of the petitioners as Laboratory Assistant.”
4. The said interim order was extended from time to time and on 11.02.1982 it was confirmed. It appears that salary was not being paid to petitioners despite interim order granted by the Court, therefore, Court passed order to following effect on 30.07.1982 which reads as under:-
“Heard the Counsel for the parties. It has been alleged that after interim order dated 18th November, 1981 was passed by this court restraining the respondents from appointing any person interfering in the working of petitioner as Laboratory Assistants.
They have not paid his salary under the pretext that no order to this effect has been passed by this Court. The attitude of the respondents cannot be appreciated. They are directed to pay salary in pursuance of interim order dated 18.11.1981 passed by this Court.”
5. Thereafter, petitioners made representations before respondent authority for regularization and when nothing was done, by means of two separate applications registered as T.A. No. 1432 of 1987 and T.A. No. 1429 of 1987 they approached Tribunal. Both the aforesaid applications were clubbed and decided together by Tribunal vide order dated 03.12.1992. Operative part of order of Tribunal is contained in para 4 which reads as under:-
"The respondents have opposed the claim of the applicants and have pleaded that the applicants were, not Government servants and in their appointment letters itself it was mentioned that they are not Government servants and as such the applicants cannot claim the benefit of Government servant and cannot claim a right over that post. That was the position when the applicants were appointed. But the position was changed when the institution was upgraded and the intermediate classed started and the same have been given due recognition to. The applicants may not be Government servant as such but they are not far away from a Government servant and were fully under control of the Government. The intermediate classes were open and started functioning. It is not the case of the respondents that in intermediate classes science subject has not been opened and no laboratory is working or it was decided to abolish the science classed itself. Under the interim order, the applicants are still working as Laboratory Assistants which indicates that the science classes are there. If the science classes are running, there appears no reason as to why the applicants; should to be regularized as they have been working since long. It may technically be that they may not be a Government servant but as they are claiming against the Ordnance Factory Board and the General Manager of the Ordnance Factory who is an employer of the applicants, there appears no reason as to why they will not be confirmed. Various protections have been granted to the teachers of the various institutions and these institutions may be Government, quasi- Government or recognized institutions. As such the applicants deserve to be allowed and are allowed to the extent that the applicants will be allowed to continue and their cases for regularization on the said posts shall be considered like any other teacher and they shall not be thrown out of the service. This contingency will arise only when the science subject is abolished, and in that event the question of alternative appointment or continuation of institution can arise but as the situation has not arise, we need not make any observation in this behalf except that the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the applicants for regularizing them as they are working in this institution for last so many years. Let it be done within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. No order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be placed on the file of T.A. No. 1429 of 1987.”
6. Special Leave Petition No. 7750-51 of 1984 filed against order dated 03.12.1992 passed by Tribunal was dismissed by Apex Court vide order dated 23.02.1996. In compliance of Tribunal’s judgment dated 03.12.1992, which had become final, petitioners were appointed as Lab Assistants vide orders dated 30.10.1996 w.e.f 03.12.1992. Petitioners filed representation dated 14.12.1996 before General Manager, Ordinance Factor claiming that they were entitled to be appointed w.e.f 24.04.1980 and also to be regularized from that date. It appears that thereafter, petitioners also approached this Court in Contempt Petition No. 35 of 1997 alleging willful non compliance of order passed by Tribunal. Court vide order dated 27.02.2002 dismissed Contempt Petition as not maintainable since the matter pertained to Tribunal.
7. When representations of petitioner dated 14.12.1996 was rejected by respondent authorities, they approached Tribunal by means of Original Application No. 382 of 2007 seeking quashing of order dated 09.04.1997 rejecting their representation for regularization w.e.f 24.04.1980. They also sought direction for regularization of their services w.e.f 24.04.1980 and payment of arrears of salaries from that date. The said Original Application has been rejected by Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 11.03.2014 whereagainst this writ petition has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that mere fact that earlier judgment of Tribunal dated 03.12.1992 did not regularize services of petitioners w.e.f 24.04.1980 and left the matter for consideration of respondents authorities, would not justify rejection of claim of petitioners for regularization w.e.f 24.04.1980.
9. The submission of counsel for petitioner is wholly misconceived. Admittedly, petitioners service were terminated w.e.f 01.04.1981 from the post of Lab Assistant which has been subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition no. 5912 of 1981 wherein interim order was also passed. The above writ petition was transferred to Tribunal after enactment of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 & Constitution of Tribunal. Ultimately it came to be decided by Tribunal vide judgment dated 03.12.1992, whereby it directed that in view of continuation of service on the strength of stay order granted by High Court, regularization of petitioners services be considered by respondent authorities. The authorities in pursuance thereof, regularized services of petitioners as Lab Assistant w.e.f 03.12.1992 as there no post of Lab Assistant was available till 1986.
10. In the impugned order Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that after dismissal of SLP filed by respondents authorities against order dated 03.12.1992, the said order attained finality. Para 12 and 13 of the judgment reads as under:-
“Para 12:- In the light of this order of Hon’ble C.A.T, which became confirmed alter failure of this S.L.P.
filed by the respondents in the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is noticed that the respondents were constrained to adjust the applicants temporarily against two suitably vacant posts in similar pay scale. This clearly indicates that vacant posts of Lab Assistants did not exist even in 1996 when these orders were issued. Clearly, the applicants could not have been regularized in posts which was neither sanctioned nor available in 1980 or till long thereafter. The applicants can hardly claim a parallel with the four teachers, who were regularized in 1980 as that was done against duly sanctioned posts.”
“PARA NO. 13 Since the order of C.A.T Allahabad Bench was issued on 03.12.1992 at which time the sanction of posts of Lab Assistants was not available, the respondents fairly implemented these orders w.e.f the date of issue of the same by going through the process of keeping some similar posts vacant. Hence, the orders of the respondents in this regard cannot be faulted. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed with no order on costs.”
11. Since, prior to 03.12.1992 there was no sanctioned post of Lab Assistants petitioners were rightly denied regularization of their services w.e.f 24.04.1980. We find no error or illegality in finding of fact recorded by Tribunal in dismissing claim petition. We find no ground for interference in view taken in by judgment writ petition lacks merit and accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Vikram