SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 902

2000(6) Supreme 437
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Debika Guha & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3080 of 2000
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12309/1997)
Decided on 28-4-2000

Headnote:Service Law-Substitute Extra Departmental Agents of Postal Department-Claim for regularisation-CAT ordering that those who have worked for 180 days or more in a calendar year continuously can claim to be regularised-Not sustainable-There cannot be a legal claim on basis of 180 days continuous work-If it is shown that they have worked for long periods continuously, it will be department to consider for absorption or not-CAT s order set aside.

       

ORDER

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 absorption. 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 department 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 in-correct 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.

(C.R.) Appeal allowed.

**************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top