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) “Quash the order of Respondent No. 2 bearing No. CAD Order No. 112/E of 2019 dated 5.10.2019 so far it deny the benefit of regularization/ confirmation to the applicant for the post of Junior Assistant w.e.f 11.06.2009 i.e. the date the applicant is continuously working on the post without there being any break.

b) Direct the respondents to confirm/regularize the services of applicant to the post of Junior Assistant w.e.f 11.06.2009 alongwith all the consequential service benefits including fixation of seniority and monetary benefits.

c) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems appropriate and considers the applicant entitled thereto be also issued.”

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

a) The applicant was initially engaged as Chowkidar on stop-gap basis on 14.08.1992, and after long years of uninterrupted service, his services were regularized vide Government Order No. 15-Agri of 2008 dated 28.01.2008 with retrospective effect from the date of initial engagement. It was contended that the respondents themselves recognized the continuous nature of the applicant’s service.

b) It was further submitted that the applicant possessed requisite computer and typing qualifications even prior to 2009 and was well-versed with clerical work. On account of his eligibility and suitability, the applicant was adjusted as In-charge Junior Assistant against a clear vacant post vide CAD Order No. 71/E of 2009 dated 11.06.2009, in his own pay and grade with charge allowance, and that since the said date, the applicant has continuously discharged duties of Junior Assistant without any interruption.

c) The order dated 11.06.2009 did not contain any rider, limitation, or conditional clause, nor was the adjustment made subject to approval of DPC. The applicant, therefore, acquired a legitimate and enforceable right to be considered for regularization from the date of such continuous officiation.

d) It was argued that while the applicant continued to work as Junior Assistant for more than a decade, several similarly situated colleagues were granted regularization from the date of holding the post by applying Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007 dated 28.06.2007, whereas the same benefit was arbitrarily denied to the applicant, resulting in hostile discrimination.

e) The applicant was compelled to approach the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 2505/2013, which was disposed of on 21.11.2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization from the date his juniors were promoted. Despite the said judicial direction, the respondents rejected the claim by relying upon unapproved draft recruitment rules, which had no statutory force.

f) It was further submitted that the applicant again approached the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 2665/2015, wherein vide interim order dated 23.09.2015, the respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case in the light of the judgment rendered in SWP No. 848/2004 (Ashok Kumar), which judgment had attained finality and stood implemented departmentally.

g) The DPC meetings held in September 2019 recorded that the applicant was otherwise eligible for regularization w.e.f. 11.06.2009, yet the respondents illegally postponed his regularization on the pretext of typing test, which the applicant ultimately cleared on 18.12.2018. It was contended that the insistence on typing test at such a belated stage was wholly arbitrary and could not defeat the applicant’s accrued rights.

h) It was lastly submitted that the impugned order dated 05.10.2019, whereby the applicant was regularized only w.e.f. 25.05.2019, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be set as