The court emphasized that procedural fairness and equality must prevail in administrative decisions, particularly regarding labor regularization, highlighting that technical grounds cannot overshadow substantive justice.

ORDER :

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 260/00161 of 2017, inter alia, allowing the Original Application filed by the opposite party Subodha Kumar Nayak.

3. It appears that the opposite party being the applicant has filed the aforesaid Original Application seeking for the following reliefs:

“(i) To quash the order of Respondent No. 2 dt. 30.08.2016 under Annexure-A/16 & direct the respondent no. 1 & 2 to antedate the date of regularization of service of the applicant / date of his absorption in Group-D service from the date, retrenched casual labourers of RRB, Bhubaneswar as are seen under Annexure-A/3 (who were similarly situated like him) have been regularized/absorbed in service in terms of Annexure-A/2 with all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits on the basis of equality and maintaining uniformity in consideration or quash the Annexure-A/16 and direct the respondent no. 1&2 lo treat the date of incorporation of name of the applicant in casual live register i.e. 08.03.02 (as has been made under Annexure-AV6), as his date of appointment as Substitute Helper-ll (which has been made vide Annexure-A/7).

(ii) To further direct the above Respondents to antedate the temporary status of the applicant from 05.08.06 to 08.07.02, holding him to have completed 120 days service as Substitute Helper-ll from 08.03.02, (which is the date of entry of his name in the casual live register) and accordingly further direct the above respondents to antedate the date of regularization of the applicant as Helper-ll (as has been made in Annexure-A/9) from 08.11.07 to 09.07.02 (i.e. the next date of his getting temporary status from 08.07.02) notionally and accordingly direct the respondents to release the differential salary, payable to him from 08.11.07 onwards till date and treat the service of the applicant from his antedated date of regularization i.e. 09.07.02 to till his actual joining in Group-D post as Helper-ll on 08.11.07 vide Annexure-A/9 as qualifying service only for the purpose of pension and other consequential service benefits except seniority in the interest of justice.”

4. The main ground that has been taken by the opposite party for claiming such relief was that the order dated 30.08.2016 was a non-speaking order and it was silent on many aspects, which shows that the authority has not considered the said aspects while passing the said order. The order dated 30.08.2016 was passed rejecting the claim solely on the ground of limitation, which is a technical ground, on the basis of which, the opposite party cannot be denied the relief. Further grounds have been taken by the opposite party that he had sought for antedating his date of regularization only to come under the fold of pension scheme and in the impugned order dated 30.08.2016, nothing has been stated by the authority about the similarly placed person like the opposite party, who were taken back into service and regularized in their respective posts with all consequential financial benefits and the factum of discrimination to the opposite party has not been denied by the petitioners. It is further stated in the grounds that the opposite party is neither claiming seniority nor financial benefits (except notional benefits) while praying for antedating his date of regularization of service from 08.11.2007 to