UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS Vs. PARTHA DAS AND 2 ORS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Union Of India And 3 Ors
Partha Das And 2 Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
A.S. Bopanna, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. B.K.Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Dr. J.L. Sarkar, learned counsel assisted by Mr. G.J. Sarma, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT" for short) in O.A. No. 040/00417/2016. The private respondent herein was before the CAT seeking that the petitioners be directed to absorb the respondent in Group-D post of the Railways under the Scheme as laid down by the Railway Board on 3.5.2006 and effect be given from the date when his juniors who were on roll were absorbed. Consequential prayer has also been sought in the application. The CAT having considered the rival contentions was of the opinion that the respondents herein was entitled to such absorption and, in that view, directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the private respondent herein for absorption in Group-D post and to give him appointment if he fulfills all other conditions as is required by the rules.
(2.) The learned counsel representing the petitioners, while assailing the order, would contend that the scheme was initially provided for such recruitment in Group-D category by communication dated 30.05.2000 (Annexure-1 to the petition). In that regard, it is pointed out that the requirement thereof was that such employee should have completed three years as on 10.06.1997 and should still be on the roll subject to the fulfillment of other conditions relating to the education, etc. It is further pointed out that through subsequent notification dated 03.05.2006, though the period of minimum requirement of three years service as on 10.06.1997 had been diluted, the condition that such employee should be on the roll is still a pre-requirement. Hence, he contends that as on the date when the Union had sent the list of the persons whose cases were required to be absorbed, the respondent herein was not on the roll. In that regard, a reference is made to the communication of the Union dated 24.11.2010 and it is further pointed out that the respondent herein had discontinued his service on 31.7.2009. Hence, he contends that the respondent herein does not fulfill the requirement of being on the roll as on 24.11.2010 and, as such, the question of consideration of the case of the respondent would not arise as the office order absorbing the service of the other persons whose names had been recommended was made on 7.12.2010, on which date also, the respondent was not in service.
(3.) The learned counsel for the private respondent would, however, try to sustain the order passed by the CAT and the contention as put forth is sought to be reiterated.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.