Writ Petition No.850/2013

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.850 OF 2013

1.

Director General,

Sports Authority of India,

A Society registered under the

Societies Registration Act, an

autonomous body of the

Govt. of India, under the Ministry

of Sports and Youths Affairs,

Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,

New Delhi – 110 003

2.

Director,

Sports Authority of India,

Netaji Subhash Western Centre,

Sector - 15,

Gandhinagar

(Gujarat) – 383 016

3.

Dy. Director,

Sports Authority of India,

Western Training Centre,

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

Marathwada University Campus,

Aurangabad – 431 004

...

PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Iftekar Ahmed Deshmukh,

Working as L.D.C. In Western

Training Centre,

Sports Authority of India,

Aurangabad,

R/o Nizamuddin Aulia Road,

Shahgunj, Aurangabad

...

RESPONDENT

.....

Mr. Ruturaj C. Patil, Advocate for petitioners,

Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent

.....

Writ Petition No.850/2013

2

CORAM

:

T.V. NALAWADE AND

SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED :

21st March, 2018

JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by

consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Vires of the judgment passed by Central Administrative

Tribunal, granting seniority and direction to treat the period from

1.12.1990 to 12.6.1995 for qualifying service of pension and

entitlement to grant of first financial upgradation under the A.C.P.

Scheme on completion of 12 years of service, is challenged by

respondents in Original Application No.705/2007. The respondent in

this petition is original applicant.

3.

The petitioner No.1 is Director General of Sports Authority

of India. Petitioner No.2 is Director of Sports Authority of India and

petitioner No.3 is Deputy Director of Sports Authority of India, run

under the control and supervision of Government of India. The

respondent is working as Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred as

“L.D.C.”) of the petitioners.

4.

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that,

under the Government of India as also under Sports Authority of India

Writ Petition No.850/2013

3

Service Bye-laws and Conditions of Service (Regulation) Rules, 1992,

prescribed the maximum age limit for the appointment on the post of

L.D.C., as 25 years. However, the respondent was born on 5.12.1960

and on the date of his appointment on 1.12.1989, on daily wages

basis, he was already 29 years of the age and, therefore, over age,

and not eligible for appointment on regular basis. He submitted that,

therefore, even the first appointment of respondent was illegal as

contrary to the Service Rules and, therefore, even the respondent was

erroneously regularised on the post by order dated 25.9.1995,

without the knowledge of petitioner No.1 Director General, Sports

Authority of India (hereinafter referred as “SAI”).

5.

Next submission of learned Advocate for the petitioners is

that, the learned Tribunal ignored the illegal regularisation of

respondent and erroneously directed that the ad-hoc service rendered

by respondent be counted w.e.f. 1.12.1990 for the purpose of

seniority, eligibility and qualifying service for pension. He submitted

that, the Tribunal erroneously directed to grant to the respondent

financial upgradation under A.C.P. Scheme on completion of 12 years

of service counting regular service from 1.12.1990. He has drawn

attention of this Court to the landmark judgment in the case of

“Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi” reported in

[(2006) 4 SCC 1], wherein the Apex Court ruled that, illegal

employment cannot be entitled to any right to absorb and made

Writ Petition No.850/2013

4

permanent in service. He pointed out that, in the case of “State of

Haryana Vs. Surinder Kumar” reported in [AIR 1997 SC 1997],

in which the Supreme Court ruled that, the Court