http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.DHARANI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, V.N. KHARE.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T                  THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V.Manohar                Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N.Khare                       Mr.Anil Katyal, Mr.P.P.Malhotra, Sr.Advocate  and Ms.A.Subhashini,  Advocate with him for the appellants. Mr.K.V.Mohan   and    Mr.A.K.Yadav,   Advocates    for   the respondents. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: MRS SUJATA V,MANOHAR, J.      This is  an appeal from a judgment and order of Central Administrative Tribunal,  Ernakulam bench,  dated 23.4.1993. The respondents,  who are  four in  number, were  engaged as tracers. According to the appellants, they were appointed in short-term vacancies  either against  leave vacancies  or to meet additional  commitment of  urgent, nature  of the Navy. the respondents  were so  employed  in  the  Directorate  of Installation, Naval  Training, Cochin.  Respondents 1  to  4 were engaged  for the  first time  on 18.10.1984,  5.2.1986, 18.8.1986 and 3.11.1986 respectively. They were continued in employment with  breaks  in  service.  Their  services  were regularised with  effect from 30th August, 1991 on terms and conditions   set   out   in   the   letter   granting   them regularisation.   The    respondents   moved   the   Central Administrative   Tribunal,    Ernakulam   Bench,    claiming regularisation from  their date  of initial  appointment  as casual workers  and for  all consequential  benefits.  Their application is allowed. Hence this appeal.      Under Ministry  of  Defence  letter  No.3.(3)/65/118203 dated 26th  of September,  1966, as  amended from  time, the terms and  conditions under  which  the  service  of  casual employees could  be regularised  were set  out. Under Clause (a) of  that letter  non-industrial personnel  who had  been employed for  more than  one year  without break  should  be converted into  regular employees  with effect from the date of their  initial employment  as  casual  employees  if  the commandants etc  are  satisfied  that  their  services  will required on  a long  term basis. The terms and conditions of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

regularisation of service of casual non-industrial employees were further  laid down  in the  Ministry of  Defence latter dated 24th  of November,  1967. Clause 2 of this letter sets out  that  the  past  service  rendered  from  the  date  of appointment by  such of  the casual non-industrial personnel who are  converted as regular non-industrial employees, will be treated  as having been rendered in the regular capacity. However, by  a further  latter from  the Ministry of Defence (Corrigendum) dated  27th of May,1980, amendments were made, inter alia,  in clause  2 of  the letter  of 24th  November, 1967. Clause  2 of  the letter  of 24th of November, 1967 as amended provided  that on  regularisation the employees will be  entitled  to  all  benefits  as  for  regular  employees excepting seniority,  probationary period and grant of quasi permanent status  which  aspects  will  be  regulated  under orders issued  from time to time. Service rendered on casual basis prior  to appointment on regular basis shall not count for seniority.  Thus after  the letter of 27th of May, 1980, on  regularisation,   for  determining   the  seniority   of employees whose  services were regularised, their service as casual employees  could not be taken into account. All these latters were  superseded by  letter of 31st of January, 1991 issued by  the Ministry of Defence. It said that henceforth, the terms  and conditions of employment of casual labour and regularisation of  their services will be done on conditions laid  down   in  the   letter  of   31.1.1991.  The  revised instructions which  would govern such regularisation are set out therein.  Under Clause  3, the regularisation of service of non-industrial  casual personnel  already appointed shall be regulated  as laid  down in  that clause. Sub-clauses (f) and (g) of Clause 3 are as follows:      "(f):   Seniority    of   employees      appointed to regular establishments      will be reckoned with only from the      date of regular appointment      (g):  Service  rendered  on  casual      basis  prior   to  appointment   in      regular establishment  shall not be      counted  for  the  purpose  of  pay      fixation etc."      Pursuant to  the policy  of regularisation laid down in this letter  of 31.1.1991  the respondents  were absorbed in regular service  with effect  from 30th of August, 1991. The order absorbing  these four  respondents in  regular service clearly sets  out that  their  seniority  in  the  grade  of tracers will commence from the date of their regularisation. clause 3  of  this  letter  further  provides  that  service rendered on  casual basis  prior to  appointment in  tegular establishment shall  not be  counted for  the purpose of pay fixation etc.      The  respondents   have  thus   been   regularised   in accordance with the existing police of regularisation and on terms and  conditions set out in that policy. In view of the clear terms  of this  policy, the Tribunal was not justified in granting to the respondents the benefit of seniority from the date  of their initial employment as casual workers; nor was the  Tribunal justified  in granting  to the respondents all consequential  benefits. The Tribunal has relied upon an earlier decision  of the  Full  Bench  of  the  Tribunal  in A.Ramakrishnan Nair  & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. [(1991) 15 Admn.  Tribunals Cases  897] which However, was concerned with regularisation  of casual  employees in accordance with the Ministry  of Defence  letter 24.11.1967.  The  Tribunal, however, has  failed to note that the present regularisatins are not  under the  Defence Ministry’s  letter  of  24th  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

November, 1967.  The scheme  of regularisation  applicble to the respondents is as laid down in the letter of Ministry of Defence of  31.1.1991 which  contains terms  and  conditions somewhat different  from those  earlier provided. In view of the express  scheme of  regularisation as  contained in  the letter of  31.1.1991, the  Tribunal  was  not  justified  in giving the above directions.      The respondents  also drew our attention to a letter of 26th of  June, 1995  issued by the Ministry of Defence under which judgments  of the Central Administrative Tridunal, New Bombay Bench  in applications  which are  mentioned therein, were implemented.  The letter  states that  the question  of extending the  benefits  of  the  above  judgments  to  non- petitioners  who   are  similarly   placed  has   also  been considered by  the Government  in  accordance  with  Central Administrative Trbunal’s  directive and  it has been decided to implement  the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Bombay’s directions. This  letter, however,  refers  to  applications made in 1988 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Bombay have  not been  produced before  us and  we not  in a position to  consider whether any direcitions given in those judgnents would  be applicable  to the respondents herein or not. Hence  we can  only observe that if the respondents are enititled to the benefit of the letter of 26th of June, 1995 they will  be entitled  to make  a  representation  to  that effect before  the appropriate authority who will decide the same in accordance with law.      The appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.