G. Palani vs The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 18.06.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No. 948 of 2010.

The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was engaged as casual labour NMR Carpenter by the Public Works Department / second respondent. He worked as daily rated casual employee from 1978 to 1987 with job breaks. Thereafter, he worked as daily rated casual employee from 1987 to 24.02.2005 for other works again with job breaks. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 05.04.1995, the petitioner was granted temporary status. The petitioner joined duty in Group ''D'' post of Mazdoor on 03.03.2005. Being aggrieved that the petitioner was not regularized as Carpenter with effect from the initial date of engagement, i.e., on 2.3.1978, the petitioner preferred O.A.No. 460 of 2009 before the Tribunal. The said application was disposed of on 9.6.2009, directing the respondent to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner.

The second respondent passed an order on 8.12.2009 on the representation of the petitioner, holding that the engagement of the petitioner from 1978 to 1987 was not continuous and only from 1989, his engagement was continuous. Accordingly, his seniority was fixed as 1292 and thereafter, he was regularized as Mazdoor in the year 2005. Thus, his representation for regularization with effect from the earlier date was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present Original Application before the Tribunal.

The learned Tribunal, having considered all aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that the engagement of the petitioner from 1978 to 1987 was not continuous and the respondent had rightly granted regularization in the year 2005 on the post of Mazdoor. Thus the original application was dismissed as being devoid of merit. The said dismissal order is sought to be questioned in the present writ petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and examined all facts of the case.

It is evident that the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to regularization with effect from 2.3.1978 when he was appointed initially is not based on any substantive provision of law as engagement of the petitioner as casual labour cannot be held as a legal appointment in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. The second respondent had considered the case of the petitioner for regularization on the basis that the petitioner had worked continuously from 1989 and as such, he was considered along with others and was regularized in the year 2005. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order dated 08.12.2009, which was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal.

It is well settled principle of law that no employee can claim regularization with effect from a particular date, unless the appointment of the employee is in accordance with the constitutional scheme through proper selection after affording opportunity to all eligible candidates. Secondly, the appointment must be against the sanctioned post. Thirdly, mere continuance on temporary daily wage basis does not entitle the employee to be regularized with effect from a particular date and also on completion of years of service.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity and irregularity in the order dated 18.06.2013 passed by the Tribunal sought to be impugned in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.