Union of India & Ors Vs. M.Dharani
& Ors  INSC 571 (8 July 1997)
V. MANOHAR, V.N. KHARE.
8TH DAY OF JULY, 1997 Present:
Mrs. Justice Sujata V.Manohar Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N.Khare Mr.Anil Katyal, Mr.P.P.Malhotra,
Sr.Advocate and Ms.A.Subhashini, Advocate with him for the appellants.
and Mr.A.K.Yadav, Advocates for the respondents. The following Judgment of the
Court was delivered:
SUJATA V,MANOHAR, J.
is an appeal from a judgment and order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
bench, dated 23.4.1993.
respondents, who are four in number, were engaged as tracers. According to the
appellants, they were appointed in short-term vacancies either against leave
vacancies or to meet additional commitment of urgent, nature of the Navy.
respondents were so employed in the Directorate of Installation, Naval
Training, Cochin. Respondents 1 to 4 were engaged
for the first time on 18.10.1984, 5.2.1986, 18.8.1986 and 3.11.1986
respectively. They were continued in employment with breaks in service. Their
services were regularised with effect from 30th August, 1991 on terms and conditions set out in
the letter granting them regularisation. The respondents moved the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, claiming regularisation from their
date of initial appointment as casual workers and for all consequential
benefits. Their application is allowed. Hence this appeal.
Ministry of Defence letter No.3.(3)/65/118203 dated 26th of September, 1966, as
amended from time, the terms and conditions under which the service of casual
employees could be regularised were set out. Under Clause (a) of that letter
non-industrial personnel who had been employed for more than one year without
break should be converted into regular employees with effect from the date of
their initial employment as casual employees if the commandants etc are
satisfied that their services will required on a long term basis. The terms and
conditions of regularisation of service of casual non-industrial employees were
further laid down in the Ministry of Defence latter dated 24th of November,
1967. Clause 2 of this letter sets out that the past service rendered from the
date of appointment by such of the casual non-industrial personnel who are
converted as regular non-industrial employees, will be treated as having been
rendered in the regular capacity.
by a further latter from the Ministry of Defence (Corrigendum) dated 27th of
May,1980, amendments were made, inter alia, in clause 2 of the letter of 24th November, 1967. Clause 2 of the letter of 24th of
November, 1967 as amended provided that on regularisation the employees will be
entitled to all benefits as for regular employees excepting seniority,
probationary period and grant of quasi permanent status which aspects will be
regulated under orders issued from time to time. Service rendered on casual
basis prior to appointment on regular basis shall not count for seniority. Thus
after the letter of 27th of May, 1980, on regularisation, for determining the
seniority of employees whose services were regularised, their service as casual
employees could not be taken into account. All these latters were superseded by
letter of 31st of January, 1991 issued by the Ministry of Defence. It said that
henceforth, the terms and conditions of employment of casual labour and regularisation
of their services will be done on conditions laid down in the letter of
31.1.1991. The revised instructions which would govern such regularisation are
set out therein. Under Clause 3, the regularisation of service of
non-industrial casual personnel already appointed shall be regulated as laid
down in that clause. Sub-clauses (f) and (g) of Clause 3 are as follows:
Seniority of employees appointed to regular establishments will be reckoned
with only from the date of regular appointment (g): Service rendered on casual
basis prior to appointment in regular establishment shall not be counted for
the purpose of pay fixation etc." Pursuant to the policy of regularisation
laid down in this letter of 31.1.1991 the respondents were absorbed in regular
service with effect from 30th of August, 1991. The order absorbing these four
respondents in regular service clearly sets out that their seniority in the grade
of tracers will commence from the date of their regularisation.
3 of this letter further provides that service rendered on casual basis prior
to appointment in tegular establishment shall not be counted for the purpose of
pay fixation etc.
have thus been regularised in accordance with the existing police of regularisation
and on terms and conditions set out in that policy. In view of the clear terms
of this policy, the Tribunal was not justified in granting to the respondents
the benefit of seniority from the date of their initial employment as casual
workers; nor was the Tribunal justified in granting to the respondents all
consequential benefits. The Tribunal has relied upon an earlier decision of the
Full Bench of the Tribunal in A.Ramakrishnan Nair & Ors. V. Union of India
& Ors. [(1991) 15 Admn. Tribunals Cases 897] which However, was concerned
with regularisation of casual employees in accordance with the Ministry of Defence
letter 24.11.1967. The Tribunal, however, has failed to note that the present regularisatins
are not under the Defence Ministry's letter of 24th of November, 1967. The
scheme of regularisation applicble to the respondents is as laid down in the
letter of Ministry of Defence of 31.1.1991 which contains terms and conditions
somewhat different from those earlier provided. In view of the express scheme
of regularisation as contained in the letter of 31.1.1991, the Tribunal was not
justified in giving the above directions.
respondents also drew our attention to a letter of 26th of June, 1995 issued by
the Ministry of Defence under which judgments of the Central Administrative Tridunal,
New Bombay Bench in applications which are mentioned therein, were implemented.
The letter states that the question of extending the benefits of the above
judgments to non- petitioners who are similarly placed has also been considered
by the Government in accordance with Central Administrative Trbunal's directive
and it has been decided to implement the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bombay's directions. This letter, however, refers to applications made in 1988
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Bombay have not been produced
before us and we not in a position to consider whether any direcitions given in
those judgnents would be applicable to the respondents herein or not. Hence we
can only observe that if the respondents are enititled to the benefit of the
letter of 26th of June, 1995 they will be entitled to make a representation to
that effect before the appropriate authority who will decide the same in
accordance with law.
appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.