Regularization under quota rules effective only from vacancy availability date; in-charge does not confer retrospective right; delayed challenge time-barred.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

a) “To set-a-side the order on regularization made in-respect of the applicant as on 01.01.2014 vide an order (Annexure- A4)and pass an order of regularization from 01.01.2013 such that the pensionary benefits accruing from the regularization from I/C Head Assistant to Head Assistant are availed by the applicant.

b) Direct the official respondents to consider the representations for regularization of the applicant as Head Assistant.

c) Any other relief/order which the hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the applicant as against the respondents.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The applicant, Ram Chand, superannuated employee of the School Education Department, seeks re-fixation of the date of his regularization as Head Assistant from 01.01.2014 to 01.01.2013, contending that the delayed regularization has adversely affected his retiral and pensionary benefits.

b) The factual matrix, as emerges from the pleadings and record, is that the applicant was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 30.08.1979 in the School Education Department and was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant on 29.06.2000 on substantive basis. While continuing in service, he was placed as In-charge Head Assistant on 02.01.2013 against a clear vacancy and was allowed charge allowance after obtaining vigilance clearance. At the relevant point of time, the applicant had already crossed the age of 50 years and was thus falling within the zone of consideration under SRO-272 of 2008 which governs promotion/regularization to the post of Head Assistant in cases where the incumbent has not qualified the Secretariat Assistants Examination.

c) The applicant claims that immediately after being placed as In- charge Head Assistant, he represented his case for regularization through proper channel. Repeated representations dated 01.06.2016, 03.02.2017, 15.07.2017 and 18.07.2022 were submitted, but no final decision was communicated. In the meantime, the applicant also sought information under the Right to Information Act, pursuant to which the department acknowledged that his case would be placed before the next DPC for consideration of regularization and monetary benefits.

d) However, when Order No. DSEJ/NG/8679-86 dated 19.05.2016 came to be issued, the applicant was regularized as Head Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.2014, despite the fact that he had already retired on 30.06.2013. According to the applicant, this resulted in denial of actual monetary benefits and consequential enhancement of pension. He specifically asserts that his contemporaries, namely respondent nos. 5 and 6, who were promoted as Senior Assistants on the same date as him, were regularized as Head Assistants w.e.f. 01.01.2013, whereas his case was unjustifiably deferred by one year.

e) The applicant alleges that the delay in his regularization was neither attributable to any deficiency in service record nor to vigilance issues, as he was admittedly vigilance-cleared and no departmental or criminal proceedings were pending against him. It is his categorical stand that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that SRO-272 does not authorize postponement of regularization once an employee is otherwise eligible and working against a clear vacancy.

f) Aggrieved by the non-correction of his date of regularization and de