Employees with over ten years of irregular service are entitled to regularization as per established legal precedents to prevent perpetuation of illegal employment.

JUDGMENT SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,J The present Original Petition (CAT) assails the judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed in OA No.251/2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent herein has been allowed.

Facts:-

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein had approached the learned Tribunal praying for the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records leading to Annexure.A3 and set aside the same. (ii) Direct the respondents to regularise the service of the applicant with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary.

(iii) such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may find just and proper.”

2.1. The respondent herein was working as Safaiwala in the Command Stadium under the Southern Naval Command, Kochi since the year 1994 continuously and therefore she is entitled for regularization. Similarly situated 4 persons engaged as ‘Malis’ along with the respondent were working in the Stadium. To get the services of other 4 persons regularized, they approached the learned Tribunal in OA No.170/1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The learned Tribunal held that the application was not maintainable before the Tribunal. The services of the 4 Malis were regularized by the direction of this Court in OP.No.11247/1990 vide judgment dated 24.09.1994. The Apex Court had confirmed the said judgment. The respondent was under the belief that the petitioners herein would regularize her service based on Annexure A1 judgment dated 20.03.2002 in WA No.5/1995 since they were also similarly situated. The petitioners took steps to terminate her services against which she filed WP(C) No.20656/2003 before this Court and ultimately the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 14.03.2008 directing the first petitioner herein to take appropriate action on the representation dated 20.05.2003, in the light of the benefits granted to similarly situated persons. When no action was taken, the respondent filed Contempt Petition No.983/2008.

2.2. In the meanwhile, the claim of the respondent was rejected by the petitioners vide order dated 11.06.2008 in Annexure A3. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed W.P. (C).No.37498/2008 before this Court challenging Annexure A3. The Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court as per judgment dated 23.02.2010. Thereafter again aggrieved, the respondent filed W.A.No.465/2010. The Division Bench of this Court found that the respondent should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of The Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’ for short) in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] and dismissed the Writ Appeal with liberty to approach the Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned order allowed the Original Application No.251/2015 and directed regularization within a period of 3 months with all benefits like fixation of pay at the minimum of pay scale of Group 'D' should be given to her as well from the date of filing of this Original Application i.e.,18.03.2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioners herein had filed the Present Original Petition before this Court.

P etitioner’s Contentions:-

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in allowing the Original Application, as the learned Tribunal did not consider the three issues namely:-

(i) Maintainability of the Original Application.

(ii) The respondent is not similarly placed and the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others v. Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] have no applicability in the p