Regularisation not possible after 10 years of termination, and terminated employees cannot claim regularisation unless termination is found to be illegal.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order Dated 13.1.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'Tribunal') in Original Application No. 196 of 1995 by which the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the Petitioner.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Petitioner filed the Original Application before the Tribunal seeking a direction to regularise his services with retrospective effect and to give consequential benefits. The Petitioner had worked in the Geological Survey of India as a daily rated casual worker and in view of the Government Circular dated 13.11.1979 a casual worker who had put in 240 days of service in a year for two consecutive years was entitled for regularisation. The Petitioner claimed that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year for two consecutive years, i.e., in 1978 and 1979. However, the Tribunal did not find the claim of the Petitioner acceptable. As per the calculation made by the Tribunal, on the basis of record produced before it by the parties, the Petitioner had worked as per the details given below.

Period of duty Days of work

13.5.77 to 20.3.78 311

26.6.77 to 31.12.78 174

1979 30

1980 141

1981 87

1982 210

1983 98

1984 205

1985 103

3. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had not put in 240 days in any calendar year for two consecutive years and therefore, he was not entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid Circular. Hence this petition.

4. Mr. S. Palit, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and are based on no evidence. According to him, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the certificate issued by the authorities dated 27.6.1978 to show that he had worked in the said year for more than 240 days in correct perspective. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. On the contrary, Mr. J.K. Misra, Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties has opposed the petition contending that this Court cannot sit in appeal against the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal unless it is found to be perverse. The Tribunal has considered the very certificate and recorded a finding that it was not worth placing reliance for the simple reason that the period shown in the certificate overlapped for the working days in another year also. In such situation, he submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the rival submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all the materials placed before us and came to the conclusion as under:

...From the details of the applicant's engagement, quoted above, it is seen that in 1977-78, he has put in 311 days and in 1978-79 he has put in 174 days, i.e., in the second year his service fails short by 66 days. As a matter of fact, Orissa Office has pointed out this short-fall of 66 days and asked for its condonation. As the Scheme specifically provides for 240 days of engagement in two consecutive years. From the details if is clear that the applicant has not pout in 240 days of service in two consecutive years.

xxx xxx xxx

...But the office of respondent No. 3 pointed out that the two certificates at Annexures 1 and 2 are contradictory because some period covered in both the certificates is common and it was physically impossible for the applicant to have been engaged at both Lanjigarh and Pattangi Camps at the same time. It was also pointed out that according to the certificate at Annexure-2, the applicant worked at Pattangi Camp till April 1978 whereas from the letter Annexure-7 from Bhubaneswar office, it appears that Pattangi Camp was closed down on 20.3.1978. Because of these discrepancies, Bhubaneswar office was asked to re-verify the period