CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

O.A. No.108 of 2017

This the 24^th day of December, 2018

Hon’ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)

Smt. Raj Rani, aged 52 years,

W/o Late Sh. Jagmohan Sharma,

Working as Daily Wages employee,

Under Registrar of Companies, New Delhi

R/o H.No.417, Ward No.3,

Mehrauli, New Delhi-30.

....Applicant

(By Advocate : Shri Yogesh Sharma)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary,

Department of Company Affairs,

„A‟ Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Registrar of Companies,

NCT of Delhi & Haryana,

4^th Floor, IFCI Tower-61,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.

3. The Dy. Registrar of Companies,

NCT of Delhi & Haryana,

4^th Floor, IFCI Tower-61,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.

.....Respondents

(None present)

ORDER (Oral)

Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):

None for the respondents. We proceed to adjudicate this

case by invoking the provisions of Rule 16 of the CAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, learned counsel for the

applicant heard.

2

2. By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following

reliefs:-

“(i)

That the Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be

pleased to pass an order of quashing the

impugned order dated 11.11.2016 (Annex.A/1)

declaring to the effect that is illegal, arbitrary and

discriminatory and consequently pass an order

directing the respondents to regularize the service

of the applicant to any suitable post with all the

consequential benefits.

(ii)

Any other relief which the Hon‟ble Tribunal deem

fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant

along with the costs of litigation.”

3. In the instant OA, the applicant is challenging the order

dated 11.11.2016 vide which the case of the applicant for her

regularization was rejected.

4. Brief facts of the case as enumerated in the OA are that

the applicant was appointed on casual basis w.e.f. 2.6.1997

after sponsoring her name from employment exchange and

after qualifying the selection/interview etc. and since then

she is working in the department continuously.

4.1

Applicant further averred that when after completion of

240 days, she was not granted temporary status, she filed OA

2246/1998 before this Tribunal and the same was disposed

of vide Order dated 18.11.1998 with a direction to the

respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for

conferment of temporary status as per OM dated 10.9.1993.

3

4.2

In compliance of the said Order of this Tribunal, the

respondents vide order dated 29.12.1998 granted temporary

status to the applicant and also granted all the consequential

benefits.

4.3

Applicant further averred that she made several

representations

many

times

to

the

respondents

for

regularization of her services as in terms of knowledge of the

applicant after her appointment on daily wages basis, the

respondents had regularised the services of other daily wages

but her services were not regularised.

4.4

The applicant has also filed another OA 845/2013

seeking the relief of her regularization before this Tribunal

and the same was decided on 15.9.2016 with a direction to

the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for

permanent status in the light of the earlier Order of this

Tribunal in OA 2101/2001 decided on 21.8.2001, if applicant

makes a representation to the respondents within four weeks

and the respondents shall consider the applicant‟s claim

within four weeks thereafter and if the same is not accepted,

pass a speaking order, to be communicated to the applicant.

4.5

In compliance of the aforesaid Order of this Tribunal,

respondents passed the order dated 11.11.2016 whereby the

claim of the applicant for her regularization has been rejected.

4

4.6

Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed this OA

seeking the reliefs as quoted above.

5. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the services of

juniors of the applicant have been regularised ignoring t