http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAHENDER SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both side.      This appeal  by special  leave arises against the order of the  Central Administrative  Tribunal, New  Delhi made on February 8, 1996 in OA No. 1105/95.      The admitted  position is  that the respondents came to be engaged  as drivers in Intelligence Bureau, Headquarters, New Delhi  from April  24, 1986 to October 5, 1988. They had filed the  O.A. for  regularisation of  their  services  The tribunal in  the impugned  order has  directed to regularise their serviced as stated hereunder:      "In   the    present   case,    the      experience  of  the  applicants  in      more  than  7  years.    They  are,      therefore, entitled  in view of the      ration of  the above  cited case to      be considered for regularisation in      relaxation   of   their   age   and      educational   qualifications.    We      accordingly,   dispose    of   this      application with  the direction  to      the  respondents  to  consider  the      applicants  for  regularisation  on      the availability of vacancies along      with  others  after  granting  them      necessary   educational   and   age      relaxation ad  to continue  them in      their present jobs, subject to work      being available,  in preference  to      any  other   worker  who  may  have      lesser  experience   than  them  of      working with the respondents.      In view  of the settled legal position by this Court in State of  Haryana vs.  Piara Singh  [(1992) 4  SCC 118]  and plethora of precedents thereafter, the Tribunal obviously is in error  in directing regularisation of their services with effect from  the respective  dates  of  their  appointments, Instead, the  appellants are  directed to  regularise  their services in  accordance with  the rules  in the light of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

law laid down therein.      It is  contended by learned counsel for the respondents that   the   appellants   have   relaxed   the   educational qualifications  in  respect  of  15  persons  named  in  the rejoinder and,  therefore, the respondents are also entitled to the  same benefit.  the  learned  Solicitor  General  has placed before us the rules made b the Government on February 4, 1988; Note (2) was appended to Rule 2 (iii) which read as under:      "All   the   persons   working   as      Security      Assistant      (Motor      Transport)    Immediately    before      coming   into    force    of    the      Intelligence     Bureau      (Motor      Transport    Cadre)     Recruitment      (Amendment) Rules,  1988  shall  be      promoted    enbloc     as    junior      Intelligence    Officer    Grade-II      (Motor Transport)  Irrespective  of      the  number  of  years  of  service      rendered  by   them   as   Security      Assistant (Motor Transport) against      the  upgraded   post  of   Security      Assistant  (Motor   Transport)   as      Junior Intelligence Officer, Gr. II      (Motor  Transport)   as  one   time      exception."      It is stated that the previous cadre to which the above persons  came   to  be   appointed  was   abolished.  As   a consequence, all those persons working as Security Assistant (Motor Transport)  were en  bloc regularised  relaxing their educational qualifications  which is  only 6th standard and, therefore,  it  has  no  application  to  the  case  of  the respondents. In  view of  the above position, we do not find any hostile  discrimination meted out to the respondents, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed and the order in the O.A. Stands disposed of as directed earlier. No costs.