Decided on April 11,2017

Union of India and Ors. Appellant
Smt. Shantabai G. Naik Respondents


PER A.S.GADKARI, J. - (1.) The petitioners have questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai dated 31st December 2007 in Original Application Nos. 365 of 2006 and 366 of 2006, allowing the said applications in terms of the directions given by it. The Tribunal has directed the petitioners to give the respondents notional benefits of regular service from the date of their initial appointments till the date of their retirement. It is further directed that the respondents will be entitled to all the actual pensionary benefits and pension from the date the respondents take a final decision to retire the respondents as per the directions given in the said order with other necessary and consequential directions to the petitioners. The Tribunal has also issued consequential directions to the petitioners. The said order is impugned herein.
(2.) The respondents in W. P. No.2740 of 2008 had filed Original Application No.365 of 2006 and the respondent in Writ Petition No.2755 of 2008 had filed Original Application No.366 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai against the petitioners herein and had prayed for regularization of their services and consequential benefits thereto. It was the case of the respondents that the respondent in Writ Petition No.2740 of 2008, Smt. Shantabai G. Naik was working as sweeper with effect from 1.6.1974 and the respondent in Writ Petition No.2755 of 2008 was working as sweeper since 1984 in the Postal Stores Department, Thane, District Thane. That, they were performing the work of sweeping the petitioners' premises at two places and were also filling up storage vessels, pot with drinking water, in the morning from 9.30a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and then again from 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. That, they were performing their duties every day for more than 6 to 7 hours and in addition, it used to take them two to three hours to commute from their residence to office and back. It was the further case of the respondents that they were working as sweepers and cleaning the toilets of the premises of the petitioners in addition to cleaning the floor and filling water vessels as there was no regular Class IV employee appointed by the petitioners for the said job. It was the further case of the respondents that the said working system was continued without any interim directions either from the Tribunal or any other Court. The respondent Shantabai G. Naik was about 66 years of age and the respondent Smt. Sitabai R. More was more than 61 years of age on the date of filing of the said original applications and though they had reached the age of superannuation, they used to perform their duty continuously. That the work and the conduct of the respondents had all along been satisfactory and they never gave chance to complaint to the petitioners while performing their duties and it is only because of their sincere performance of duty they were continued on the said job/duty for at least 20 to 30 years. It was their further case that despite having worked which was of permanent and regular in nature, the petitioners did not take any steps to regularise the respondents. It was also the contention of the respondents that the petitioners were not in a position to appoint alternate sweepers to do the kind of job, the respondents were entrusted with for more than two decades. It was thus contended that the services of the respondents were indispensable for the petitioners. The record reveals that after notice, the petitioners appeared in the said original applications and opposed to grant of reliefs by filing their written statement. It was stated that, in the absence of vacancies or available posts, services of the respondents could not be regularized. It was also stated that maximum age limit prescribed by the Government for Group D employees is 60 years vide G.I. Department of Posts, dated 23.2.1993 and on that count the case of the respondents cannot be considered for regularization of any post of the respondents. The Tribunal after hearing the parties to the said original applications, was pleased to allow the same by the impugned order as stated herein above.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel Mrs. Masurkar for the petitioners, Mrs. Helekar, the learned Amicus Curiae and also perused the entire record annexed to the petitions.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.