2019 Supreme(SC) 64

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS.ETC.ETC. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.175-176 OF 2019 (@SLP(C) NOS.37798-37799 OF 2013)
Decided on : 08-01-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Regularising junior persons ignoring senior ones is arbitrary.
‘One time measure’ in Uma Devi must be considered as concluded only when all employees entitled for regularisation, had been considered.
Uma Devi does not preclude claims of employees seeking regularization after the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some employees.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Regularization – Appellants regularizing persons junior to petitioners – Action held arbitrary – Spirit of non-discrimination and equity runs through decisions of Supreme Court (Para 18, 24)

       (b) Service law – Regularization – Uma Devi’s case – ‘One time measure’ – Must be considered as concluded only when all employees entitled for regularisation, had been considered – Uma Devi not precluding claims of employees seeking regularization after the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some employees, provided that the said employees have completed 10 years of service – Directed that case for regularization be considered strictly in accordance with the seniority list – Persons available for regularization on basis of presently existing vacancies be considered in accordance with law – Their pay and allowances be fixed notionally as directed by Tribunal – Persons who have crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to computation and payment of their retiral dues on that notional basis. (Para 21, 22, 24)

       (2006) 4 SCC 1; (2014) 13 SCC 249; (2015) 11 SCC 255; (2010) 9 SCC 247; (2018) 8 SCC 238 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The first round of proceedings was initiated on behalf of persons who had been engaged as Group ‘D’ workers on a casual basis at the Institute. The grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that since 1986, the Institute had engaged casual workers and, despite long years of service, they had not been regularized. While disposing of the Original Application, the Tribunal issued directions (i) mandating the preparation of a seniority list in accordance with the number of days worked; and (ii) for working out the possibility of regularizing the services of these casual workers against vacant Group ‘D’ posts then existing or as may be created in the near future.

       The Tribunal directed that in the meanwhile the workers shall be accommodated in batches of twenty in accordance with the exigencies of work in the Institute.

       The judgment of the Tribunal was assailed before and considered by a Division Bench of the High Court in writ proceedings initiated by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The High Court observed that “it was not in dispute” that there was no positive direction as such for regularization of the service of the casual workmen and that there was only a direction for considering the possibility of regularization.

       After the judgment of the High Court, the casual workmen moved the Tribunal in another Original Application. The specific grievance with which the application was moved was that despite the specific directions contained in the order of the Tribunal to observe seniority, persons who had been regularized and given permanent status were below the applicants in the order of seniority. Specific examples were furnished of the manner in which the seniority list was breached.

       The Tribunal held that in pursuance of its earlier order, which was confirmed by the High Court, the Union of India was obliged to prepare a seniority list based on the number of days worked and to consider the possibility of regularization against existing or future vacancies. The Tribunal observed that despite its earlier directions, the authorities at the Institute had proceeded to regularize persons junior to them and with a lesser length of service.

       In the meantime, in 2011, new recruitment rules titled “the Indian Audit and Accounts Department Multi-Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2011” came into force in pursuance of which advertisements were issued for filling up several posts of Multi-Tasking Staff.

       The Tribunal observed that though the applicants before it had admittedly worked for a longer period of time than the private respondents (Respondents 6 to 9) who had been regularized, the benefit of regularization had not been granted to seniors in the seniority list. The Tribunal noted that the Union of India had committed a breach of its assurance furnished in the course of earlier contempt proceedings that those who would report for duty would be accepted on work. Moreover, while failing to regularize persons who had put in more than 12 years of service as casual workers, the benefit of regularization had been granted to juniors despite the earlier orders which had attained finality.

       The High Court has, while confirming the order of the Tribunal, held that in regularizing the juniors of the private respondents against vacant Group ‘D’ posts, the appellants have frustrated the orders passed by the Court in the earlier proceedings. Hence, it has been directed that even if posts in the Institute are not available, the applicants who claimed regularization could be considered in other places where Group ‘D’ posts are available.

       Fining of the Court:

       Regularising junior persons ignoring senior ones is arbitrary.

       ‘One time measure’ in Uma Devi must be considered as concluded only when all employees entitled for regularisation, had been considered.

       Uma Devi does not preclude claims of employees seeking regularization after the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some employees.

       Result: Appeal disposed of.