IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5474 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11902 of 2006)

Union of India & Anr. …… Appellant (s)

Vs.  

S. Nagarajan          ….. Respondent (s)

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard both the parties.  

2. The respondent was appointed as a casual  employee in the Central

Cattle Breeding Farm run by the first respondent. In 1992, he was arrested

in  connection  with  some  criminal  case.  He  reported  back  on  duty  on

28.2.1993. The second appellant did not allow him to join duty, as he was

involved  in  a  criminal  case.  The  respondent  approached  the  Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA No.1332/1993. The said OA

was dismissed by an Order dated 28.3.1995 in view of the pendency of the

criminal case, with an observation that if respondent was exonerated, it will

be open to appellants to re-engage the respondent.

3. In the year 2001, the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case.

He gave a representation for reinstatement and grant of temporary status. As

he was not reinstated with conferment of temporary status, the respondent

again approached CAT in OA No.683 of 2002. That OA was disposed of

with a direction  to  dispose of  the representation.  The representation  was

accordingly  considered  but  rejected  on  8.10.2002  on  the  ground  that  no

casual  workers  were  then  being  appointed.  The  rejection  was  again

challenged  in  OA  No.950/2002  which  was  dismissed  on  9.1.2003.  The

rejection  by  the  tribunal  was  challenged  in  WP  No.3974  of  2003.  The

Division Bench of the Madras High Court has allowed the said petition in

part,  in  the  impugned  order  dated  15.2.2006.  It  has  directed  that  the

respondent  should be taken into appointment  within thirty days from the

date of receipt of the order, retrospectively from 9.10.2003 as in the case of

one M. N. Paranthaman. The High Court also directed that the respondent

shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the past period but such

past period could be taken into account for the purpose of increment and

other benefits in future. The said order is challenged.  

2

4. On the  facts  and circumstances,  we are  of  the  view that  the  High

Court was not justified in directing retrospective appointment or continuity

of service. Nor could there be any direction for regular appointment in the

absence of vacancies. As respondent was not in service as on 1.9.1993, he

was also not entitled to claim temporary status under the relevant scheme.  

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that having regard

to the order dated 28.3.1995 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal

in the first round of litigation, which had attained finality, the respondent

was entitled to relief, on being acquitted in the criminal case. He submitted

that on the facts of this case, the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka

vs. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1], would not apply.  

6. To put an end to the litigation which has gone into several rounds,

and  having  regard  to  the  facts  and  changed  circumstances,  the  learned

counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent can at best be taken

back into service only as an ad hoc casual employee (without any benefits

of  a  regular  employee  including  increments)  and  considered  for  regular

appointment  when  any  suitable  vacancy  arises.  The  learned  counsel  for

appellants also made it clear that the above will be subject to the following :

3

(i)  The  respondent  will  not  be  entitled  to  increments  or  other  benefits

available to be regular employees, unless and until he is regularly appointed.

(ii) This shall not be treated as a precedent by anyone else to claim similar

relief. The learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to show

entitlement  for  any  better  relief.  We  are  therefore  of  the  view  that  the

suggestion is reasonable and merits acceptance.  

7.     In view of the above, we allow this appeal and modify the order of the

High Court  by directing  the  appellants  to  re-employ the  respondent  as  a

fresh ad-hoc employee within three months from today, provided he makes

a written application to the second appellant in this behalf. Thereafter, he

shall be continued as such ad-hoc employee till a regular vacancy arises in

which he can be absorbed. He will not be entitled to any benefits available

to  regular  employees  until  he  is  regularly appointed.  This  shall  not  be a

precedent. Parties to bear their respective costs.

                                                                                 ……………………….J.                                                                                   [R.V. Raveendran]

New Delhi;                                                                 ……….…………….J. September 1, 2008.                                                     [J.M. Panchal]

4