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

PETITIONER: CENTRAL WELFARE BOARD & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MS. ANJALI BEPARI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (8)     1        1996 SCALE  (6)302

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Mr.  Bijan  Kumar  Ghosh,  Advocate  takes  notice  for respondent No.1.      It is  not in  dispute that  the respondent  came to be appointed against  a casual  vacancy in  the Central  Social Welfare Board  Scheme. The  respondent has  been  continuing ever since  the date  of appointment,  namely, February  11, 1992. She filed writ petition in the Calcutta High Court for direction to  regularise her  services. The  learned  Single Judge held  in the  judgment that  she was  not entitled  to regularisation as  the mode  of her  appointment was  not in accordance with  the rules.  In  the  impugned  order  dated January 24,  1996,  the  Division  Bench  in  FMAT  No.16/95 reversed the  order of the learned Single Judge and directed regularisation of the services of respondent as under:      "The appeal,  therefore,  succeeds.      The judgment and order of the trial      court  is   set  aside.   The  writ      application   is    allowed.    The      respondents   are    directed    to      regularise  the   service  of   the      appellant  in   the  post  of  Gram      Sevika with  effect from  the  date      she  completed   three   years   of      service in  the  concerned  Project      positively within  two months  from      date and  also to  pay her  arrears      salaries  and  other  benefits,  if      any, within the aforesaid period."      Calling this  order in  question,  this  SLP  has  been filed. It  is not in dispute that the project is being wound up in  a phased manner and the services of the employees are being dispensed  according is  stated by the learned counsel for the  petitioners that  no junior  to the  respondent was allowed to  continue in  the said project. It is stated that there are  other projects  being operated similarly, but the

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

persons engaged  therein also  are continuing  on  temporary basis and  are senior  to  the  respondent.  Therefore,  she cannot be  regularised in  any other  scheme. In view of the above stand,  we direct  the  petitioners  to  continue  the respondent in any other temporary scheme but keeping in mind the overall  seniority of  all the  persons; the  dispensing with the  services should  be on  last-come-first-go  basis, i.e., the  juniormost incumbent  has to go out first. As and when vacancies would arise, such persons whose services have been dispensed with will be taken back without following the practice of  requisitioning the names of candidates from the employment exchange.  They would  be regularised  only  when regular posts are available and in accordance with the order of seniority.      The special leave petition is accordingly ordered.