Ad-hoc service prior to regularization qualifies for pension eligibility; discrimination in similar cases violates constitutional rights.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“To call for records vide order NSC/CH/A-20058/1/2009/Admn/221, dated 19.03.2008, on the file of the 3^rd respondent and quash the same and regularize the service of the applicant from 17.08.14982 to 30.06.1986 and refix the pay with effect date of appointment and consequently grant 3^rd MACP with pensionary benefits with interest till date, and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and thus render justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant:

The Applicant joined the respondent department on 17.08.1982. The appointment was on Adhoc basis as there were no recruitment rules framed by the respondent for the newly created post of Rehabilitation Counsellor and was made to render service. The service of the applicant was regularized on 01.07.1986. The applicant made representation dated 05.11.2014, to the 1^st respondent to regularize the service rendered by him during 17.08.1982 to 30.06.1986, i.e., 3 years, 10 months and 13 days and for pensionary benefits on the account of fact that the junior of the applicant holding the same post was drawing Rs.6600/- wherein the applicant was drawing Rs.4800/- The respondent had acceded to consider the case of the applicant and sought service records of the applicant. The Applicant submitted his service records along with representation dated 25.05.2016. The applicant was put to shock that adhoc service of the applicant cannot be regularized on the fact that there were no recruitment rules framed. The applicant filed an OA before this Tribunal in OA No.1337/2017, and the same was disposed of by order dated 21.08.2017 to consider the representation of the applicant. On 19.03.2018, the respondent passed a speaking order rejecting the claim of the application. Left with no other efficacious remedy the applicant has filed the present OA seeking redressal.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed in a Group C post on Adhoc basis in Rehabilitation Counsellor in the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Handicapped on 17.08.1982. The said Group ‘C’ post was later upgraded to Group ‘B’ under the Director General of Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. He further submitted since there were no recruitment rules the applicant was appointed on adhoc basis, and after the notification of recruitment rules in the year 1985, the applicant was regularized on 01.07.1986.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had made several representations to the respondents to regularize his service for the period from 17.08.1982 to 30.06.1986, but there were no responses from the respondents. Hence the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No.1337/2017. This Tribunal by order dated 21.08.2017 disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondents to deal with representation of the applicant for regularization within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Subsequently, the respondents by order dated 19.03.2018, rejected the claim of the applicant by passing a speaking order

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent is illegal and without any justification. He submitted that the DPC had clearly recorded about regularizing similarly placed candidate like Smt P. Sasikala, whose adhoc period of 6 years 5 months 4 days relating back to the date of appointment was regularised with service benefits. Not granting the