Union of India &
ANR Vs. S.Nagarajan  INSC 1480 (1 September 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5474 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11902 of
2006) Union of India & Anr. ...... Appellant (s) S. Nagarajan .....
granted. Heard both the parties.
respondent was appointed as a casual employee in the Central Cattle Breeding
Farm run by the first respondent. In 1992, he was arrested in connection with
some criminal case. He reported back on duty on 28.2.1993. The second appellant
did not allow him to join duty, as he was involved in a criminal case. The
respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA
No.1332/1993. The said OA was dismissed by an Order dated 28.3.1995 in view of
the pendency of the criminal case, with an observation that if respondent was
exonerated, it will be open to appellants to re-engage the respondent.
the year 2001, the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case.
He gave a representation
for reinstatement and grant of temporary status. As he was not reinstated with
conferment of temporary status, the respondent again approached CAT in OA
No.683 of 2002. That OA was disposed of with a direction to dispose of the
representation. The representation was accordingly considered but rejected on
8.10.2002 on the ground that no casual workers were then being appointed. The
rejection was again challenged in OA No.950/2002 which was dismissed on
9.1.2003. The rejection by the tribunal was challenged in WP No.3974 of 2003.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has allowed the said petition in
part, in the impugned order dated 15.2.2006. It has directed that the
respondent should be taken into appointment within thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, retrospectively from 9.10.2003 as in the case of one M.
N. Paranthaman. The High Court also directed that the respondent shall not be
entitled to any monetary benefits for the past period but such past period
could be taken into account for the purpose of increment and other benefits in
future. The said order is challenged.
the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was not
justified in directing retrospective appointment or continuity of service. Nor
could there be any direction for regular appointment in the absence of
vacancies. As respondent was not in service as on 1.9.1993, he was also not
entitled to claim temporary status under the relevant scheme.
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that having regard to the order
dated 28.3.1995 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the first
round of litigation, which had attained finality, the respondent was entitled
to relief, on being acquitted in the criminal case. He submitted that on the
facts of this case, the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi
[2006 (4) SCC 1], would not apply.
put an end to the litigation which has gone into several rounds, and having
regard to the facts and changed circumstances, the learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the respondent can at best be taken back into service
only as an ad hoc casual employee (without any benefits of a regular employee
including increments) and considered for regular appointment when any suitable
vacancy arises. The learned counsel for appellants also made it clear that the
above will be subject to the following
(i) The respondent
will not be entitled to increments or other benefits available to be regular
employees, unless and until he is regularly appointed.
(ii) This shall not
be treated as a precedent by anyone else to claim similar relief. The learned
counsel for the respondent is not in a position to show entitlement for any
better relief. We are therefore of the view that the suggestion is reasonable
and merits acceptance.
view of the above, we allow this appeal and modify the order of the High Court
by directing the appellants to re-employ the respondent as a fresh ad-hoc
employee within three months from today, provided he makes a written
application to the second appellant in this behalf. Thereafter, he shall be
continued as such ad-hoc employee till a regular vacancy arises in which he can
be absorbed. He will not be entitled to any benefits available to regular
employees until he is regularly appointed. This shall not be a precedent.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Pages: 1 2