UOI & Ors. Vs. Debika Guha & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3080 of 2000
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12309/1997)
Petitioner: UOI & Ors.
Respondent: Debika Guha & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3080 of 2000
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12309/1997)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 28, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Absorption for regularisation – Tribunal directing regularisation of those who had worked for 180 days or more in one year – Substitute extra department agents to be absorbed in future vacancies on condition of eligibility. Held that approach was incorrect. Only if they have worked for long period continuously, their cases could be considered by depart-ment, otherwise, on basis of working continuously for 180 days, there cannot be a legal claim.(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The grievance before us in this appeal is in relation to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench holding that substitute Extra Departmental Agents of the Postal Department who have worked for 180 days or more in one calendar year continuously can claim to be regularised. The Tribunal gave a further direction that the Appellants should determine on the basis of available records the period for which the Respondents have worked continuously and if such period in any calendar year exceeds 180 days, neglecting short artificial breaks, should absorb them in future vacancies, provided they satisfy the eligibility conditions. When similar matters came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1624 of 1986 and connected matters, this Court held that the claim on behalf of substitutes ordinarily is not entertainable but made it clear that, however, if they have worked for long periods continuously, their cases could be appropriately considered by the department for absorp-tion. When this Court has already decided that there cannot be a legal claim on the basis that they have worked for 180 days continuously, it may not be necessary for us to consider that aspect of the matter. Indeed, if it is shown that they have worked for long periods continuously, it will be for the depart-ment to consider the same whether that was a proper case for absorption or not and pass appropriate orders. Thus, we think the whole approach of the Tribunal is incorrect in the light of the decision of this Court. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. However, it is open to the Appellants to examine the case of the Respondents, if they have worked for long period, to absorb them, as the case may be. The appeal is allowed.
1. Leave granted.
2. The grievance before us in this appeal is in relation to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench holding that substitute Extra Departmental Agents of the Postal Department who have worked for 180 days or more in one calendar year continuously can claim to be regularised. The Tribunal gave a further direction that the Appellants should determine on the basis of available records the period for which the Respondents have worked continuously and if such period in any calendar year exceeds 180 days, neglecting short artificial breaks, should absorb them in future vacancies, provided they satisfy the eligibility conditions. When similar matters came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1624 of 1986 and connected matters, this Court held that the claim on behalf of substitutes ordinarily is not entertainable but made it clear that, however, if they have worked for long periods continuously, their cases could be appropriately considered by the department for absorp-tion. When this Court has already decided that there cannot be a legal claim on the basis that they have worked for 180 days continuously, it may not be necessary for us to consider that aspect of the matter. Indeed, if it is shown that they have worked for long periods continuously, it will be for the depart-ment to consider the same whether that was a proper case for absorption or not and pass appropriate orders. Thus, we think the whole approach of the Tribunal is incorrect in the light of the decision of this Court. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. However, it is open to the Appellants to examine the case of the Respondents, if they have worked for long period, to absorb them, as the case may be. The appeal is allowed.
