Point of Law: High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution will not issue directions for regularization unless employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Shri Anupam Verma and Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Srivastava and Shri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.02.2020 passed in Original Application No. 485 of 2018 and the order dated 21.07.2020 passed in Review Application No. 4 of 2020 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ''Tribunal'), whereby both, Original Application (O.A.) No. 485/2018 as well as the Review Application No. 04/2020 filed by the petitioner, have been dismissed.

A. The case before the Tribunal

3. The petitioner claimed to be appointed as a Telephone Operator with effect from 06.08.2008 on contractual basis with the "Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi" (hereinafter referred to as "IGRUA") vide letter dated 05.08.2008. As per the case of the petitioner, the term of the contract was extended from time to time and the last such extension was granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.05.2016, which provided the contractual term of employment till 31.12.2016.

4. The petitioner alleged that her services were discontinued in an arbitrary manner on and from 01.01.2017, while another employee similarly circumstanced, namely, Smt. Vidya was retained as a Telephone Operator although she had been earlier engaged to work as an Assistant Librarian. Thus, the petitioner claimed that since she had been working for more than 10 years as a Telephone Operator with the respondent-IGRUA and as such she was entitled to be regularized and, thus, claimed the following relief in the original Application filed before the Tribunal; to quote :-

"i. To quash letter No. IGRUA:PF: 2016-17:238 dated 26 May 16 (Annexure no. 1, page 35) vide which the services of the applicant has not been regularized even after continuous service of more than 10 years and meeting all conditions of para 53 of case of Umadevi (supra).

ii. To direct respondents to regularise services of the applicant as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra 2006), M.L. Kesari (supra 2010) and Shiv Narayan Nagar (supra 2017) as applicant meeting all the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi (supra) with all consequential benefits.

iii. To direct respondents to permit applicant to continue her services and to pay salary and all other allowance etc. as applicable for the period connecting from Jan 2017 (date of discontinuation of service) to date of joining consequent to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court.

iv. To issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem, just and proper in the nature & circumstances of the case as the applicant had to face irreparable personal/professional/social/ financial loss due to acts to respondents through incompetent authority on the dignity of the applicant.

v. To pass any such other order or direction which is just in the present circumstances of the case.

vi. Allow the cost of this application to the applicant."

5. Obviously the aforesaid prayers were contested by the respondents, who also filed their reply stating that the discontinuation of the service was as per the engagement letter issued to the petitioner and they also raised the issue relating to limitation as is applicable under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Tribunal after recording the submission of the parties, vide paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, enumerated the following key issues for consideration; to quote :-

"i. Whether or not the services of the applicant have been discontinued as per terms and conditions of engagement;

ii. That whether the OA is liable to be dismissed on grounds of being at variance with the liberty granted in the OA 33/2018 by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.09.2018;

iii. That whether the OA is liable to be dismissed on grounds of lack of addressing the delay in filing of the OA itself qua the impugned order/le