The court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's authority to regularize employment benefits from the initial date of joining, emphasizing the evolving jurisprudence surrounding public employment and regularization practices.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

1. All these petitions by the Union Government & its official seek to lay a challenge to the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack whereby the subject O.A. Nos.158, 350, 328 & 295 of 2019 having been favoured, an order of the following kind has been passed:

“In view of the discussion above, the order dated 29.09.2017 (A/15) is quashed since it is illegal and arbitrary. Consequently the respondents are directed to extend similar benefits as granted to other similarly situated employees and regularize the service of the applicant from his initial date of joining and grant him all consequential benefits for the purpose of ACP, MACP and pensionary benefits. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of 90 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.”

2. Learned DSGI Mr. Parhi assisted by Sr. Panel Counsel & CGCs submits that the regularization having been done in the year 1985 subject to certain terms & conditions, the employees years thereafter could not have canvassed their grievance in the O.As, when section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes a period of limitation of one year, little relaxable as well; the regularization of irregular service does not always enure to the benefit of the employees except for certain limited purpose such as determining the terminal benefits; even the ratio in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , AIR 2006 SC 1806 comes to the aid of Petitioners. So arguing, he seeks for allowing the petitions by setting aside impugned orders of the Tribunal.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the private Opposite Parties, with equal vehemence, resists the petitions making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed by the Tribunal. He contends that in Maharashtra, the services of similar employees have been regularized with retrospective effect pursuant to the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay; therefore, the Union Government being an entity under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot practise discrimination; it is expected to conduct itself as a Model Employer. He also draws our attention to the Bombay High Court judgment in W.P.(C) No.543 of 2002 disposed off vide order dated 18.12.2012 wherein a direction has been issued for regularizing the services with retrospective effect from the date of entry and for granting the service benefits. He also draws our attention to a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3268 of 2011 disposed off vide order dated 22.04.2014. Lastly, he tells us that regardless of interpretations placed on the text of the impugned orders, his client would be satisfied even if the benefit of regularization is confined to determination and grant of terminal benefits, as directed by the Tribunal itself.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petitions papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the impugned orders and submission made on behalf of the private Opposite Parties. We too express few points for consideration as under:

4.1. It is not disputed before us that all these private Opposite Parties were/are the employees of Census Department headed by Registrar General of India. There services were engaged on ad hoc basis as LDCs; subsequently, they came to be regularized with a condition that the benefit of regularization is only for the post regularization effect. Some employees elsewhere in other parts of the country had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and had secured orders in their favour for counting the benefit of regularization with effect from the date of entry itself. The Bombay High Court in WP No.543 of 2002 between Smt. D.V. Pandit v. Union of