The court affirmed that irregular appointments can be considered for regularization based on length of service, regardless of procedural delays, emphasizing fairness and equitable treatment in public employment.

JUDGEMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.

1. These two petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution assails the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 18.11.2016 passed in O.A. No.817 of 2015 and O.A. No.818 of 2015 thereby allowing the applications of respondents/applicants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The facts are taken from WP. CT 160 of 2017. The respondent/applicant, Pannalal Thakur was initially engaged as Casual Labour in 1987 and continued till 1994. Pannalal Thakur alongwith other co-employee filed O.A. No.1153 of 1994 for seeking a direction for regularization. The Tribunal by order dated 15.03.1996 disposed of the said O.A. and directed the Department to consider the case of applicants therein against Group – D posts. The Department offered temporary appointment on contractual basis to the applicants therein for the post of Peon (Planned Scheme). One such appointment order dated 20.03.1997 is filed as Annexure – A2. Consequent thereupon, the employee joined as Peon (Planed Post). Shri Pannalal Thakur was transferred on 09.06.1999 to Data Processing Division. Another applicant, Shri Sanjoy Lal Maitra was appointed on contractual basis as Data Entry Operator, Grade – III. He continued up to 12.08.1999. He joined S.D.R.D. upon his transfer by order dated 27.07.2005. Learned counsel for Department projected that pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, the Group – D posts were converted as Multi-Tasking Staff (M.T.S.). The original applicants preferred an application/representation on 13.04.2007 for their regularization. Since Department did not consider the said representation, O.A. 390 of 2007 was filed, which was disposed of on 21.08.2007 by directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 13.04.2007 and pass a reasoned order within four weeks. Consequently, by order dated 08.01.2008, the representation was not entertained. However, an observation was made that Ministry will continue to explore the possibility of absorbing them in non-planned vacancy in the Division.

3. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that this order dated 08.01.2008, in absence to any challenge to it, attained finality. A similarly placed contractual employee approached the Kolkata Bench of Tribunal for consideration for regularization. The O.A. was disposed of on 18.12.2013. Other similarly situated employees preferred O.A. No.339 of 2011 and connected matters before Bangalore Bench of Tribunal, which were disposed of by directing the respondents to continue and regularize them in service.

4. The Department on 15.05.2015 passed an O.M. stating that the Posts are created temporarily for a planned scheme and these Posts cannot be converted from planned to non-planned. The regular appointment as temporary Government Employees would be made against Temporary Planned Post but similarly situated persons cannot be given similar benefits because they were not party to the cases pursuant to which the O.M. dated 15.05.2015 was issued.

5. The original applicants herein were terminated by order dated 21.05.2015. Assailing the said termination and seeking regularization, they filed O.A. No.817 and 818 of 2015 before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal on 26.05.2015 passed the interim order directing their continuance. By impugned order dated 18.11.2016, both the O.