Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors vs Rajbala

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—The Government of NCT of Delhi is aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2002 passed in OA 2079/2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the respondent''s Original Application seeking regularization as a Group ''D'' employee with the Directorate of Education, has been allowed. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, arrived at the following conclusion:-

I have considered the matter. The point for determination in this case falls within a short compass. The applicant seeks that having been on employment since 12.11.84, she is entitled for regularisation, even granting relaxation as provided by instructions of 31.12.91. Respondents on the other hand state that as she was posted against a Boys Fund post relaxation is not permissible. It is not disputed that the applicant was originally engaged as part time Domestic Science Helper on 18.12.84 and regularised in that post from that date by the order dated 21.7.87. She was also placed on the seniority list on 30.11.87. Subsequently she was screened but rejected for regularisation stating that she was not sponsored through Employment Exchange and was overaged at the time of her original engagement. These objections have come too late in the day, especially in view of the relaxation permitted by Respondents'' own letter No. DE 1(16)(3)E-1/91/37071-38070 dated 31.12.1991. The applicant''s case deserved to be considered and the failure of the respondents was inexcusable. However, after the decisions of the Tribunal in OA 1031/98, directing them to take action in view of their own letter of 9.1.98, the respondents have extended partial justice by engaging her as water woman on 4.5.99. Regularisation is the next logical step and the respondents have to grant it, extending to her the relaxation permitted by their own order dated 31.12.1991. The applicant would be entitled for regularisation from the day her case was rejected without granting her the relaxations. The respondents version that as she was only a part time water woman, drawing remuneration from Pupils Fund, would not go against her, as she is protected by the decision of this Tribunal in Vidhya''s case (OA No. 2722/99) decided on 30.6.2000.

In the result, the OA succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant regularisation to her, in terms of the relaxation permitted in respondents letter dated 31.12.1991 from 23.3.94 when her case was improperly rejected. She would be entitled only notional regularisation, with actual benefit in the Group ''D'' post against which she has been appointed only from 16.8.2001,when this OA has been filed.

According to us, we do not see as to how the petitioner can challenge the decision of the Tribunal inasmuch as by virtue of the letter dated 09.01.1998, which is Annexure P-6 to this writ petition, the respondent had been informed with regard to her services and pay by the Vice-Principal, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Qutab Garh, Delhi. In the said letter it has been categorically stated that the respondent had been regularized since 12.11.1984 vide letter No. F 2(7) -III/87/275 dated 21.07.1987. When the respondent had been regularized, as indicated and admitted in the said letter dated 09.01.1998, we do not see as to how she would be denied the benefits of regularization.

One point that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent was being paid out of the boys fund and not out of the contingency fund of the school. As such, the regularization could not have been done. However, we find that there is a letter dated 08.08.1977 issued by the Directorate of Education (Accounts-III Branch) which categorically requires the schools to pay remuneration to Domestic Science Helpers out of the pupil (boys) fund of the institute concerned. It was also indicated in the said letter dated 08.08.1977 that in case expenditure could not be made from within the boys fund, necessary proposal should be made for allotment of fund out of the contingency. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not at all tenable that the respondent could not be regularized because her remuneration was met out of the boys fund and not out of the contingency fund.

Another issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that at the time when the respondent was appointed in 1984, her age was around 31-1/2 years and this was beyond the age limit of 25 years which was stipulated for general category employees. However, the respondent, being a member of the Scheduled Caste, would automatically get a relaxation of five years, which would enable her to be employed till the age of 30 years. In the present case, the respondent would have been overage by 1-1/2 years. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there have been several instances even in respect of appointments post 07.05.1985 where age relaxation has been granted to the extent of even about 10 years. For example, he has pointed out that in the case of one Sheela Devi, the age relaxation granted was of about nine years inasmuch as she, being a general category candidate, was about 34 years of age on the date of her appointment. Another instance is of a Scheduled Caste employee, Ram Murti, who was overage by nine years being 39 years old on the date of her appointment. Yet, relaxation was granted by the petitioner. There are several other cases of age relaxation, which we need not go into. It would be sufficient to say that the age bar is not sacrosanct insofar as the petitioner is concerned and relaxation has been given from time to time. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is, therefore, no reason as to why the respondent, who has been in employment for such a long period, should not be given the age relaxation which has also been given to others, who had even worse cases. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.