- (1.) HEARD Sri V. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri D. B. Yadav, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16th January, 2006 rejecting the review application as well as the judgment and order dated 21st March, 2005 passed in Original Application No. 1300 of 2000 filed by respondent No. 1, Hari Nath Yadav, which had been allowed by issuing a direction for re-engagement and regulariza-tion of his services in Group-D. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 1 had worked as an unauthorised substitute for certain periods between 1984 to 1987. In 1984, he worked for 40 days, in 1985 and 1986, 75 days and in 1987,44 days. He filed Original Application No. 1300 of 2000, claiming the relief for re- engagement as casual labour from the date persons junior to him have been re-engaged and then to regularize him against Group-D vacancy. Learned Central Administra tive Tribunal, under the impugned judgment and order dated 21st March, 2005, has allowed the original application without considering the issue of limitation, as the original application had admittedly been filed after expiry of 13 years of his disengagement and without considering as to whether he had been an authorized substitute or had been appointed after following the procedure prescribed by law or not. The original application has been allowed by merely placing the reliance upon its earlier judgment and order dated 21st August, 2000 passed in Original Application No. 1193 of 1996; Jamuna v. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and others, wherein same relief had been granted. Petitioners have earlier filed writ petition No. 57242 of 2006 challenging the order dated 21st March, 2005. This Court vide judgment and order dated 6th September, 2005 disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to file a review application. As it was contended this Court that in the case of Jamuna (supra) relief had been granted by the Tribunal on a concession made by the department illegally, though, in law such concession could have been given and that no person had subsequently been given the same relief, which issue had not been noticed by the Tribunal. Present petitioners accordingly filed review application. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 16th January, 2006. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) THREE things remain undisputed, (a) that the respondent No. 1 had not worked subsequent to 1987, (b) he approached the learned Tribunal after expiry of 13 years, and (c) the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by respondent No. 1 only giving reference to its earlier judgment and order passed in the case of Jamuna (supra) and not on merits. In case, the respondent No. 1 had not been in service subsequent to 1987, the question of grant of the relief of regularization would not be arise or could not be considered by the learned Tribunal, as it is settled legal proposition that relief of regularisation can be claimed by a person, who is working continuously for a very long period and is not being made permanent. In such eventualities, the action of the employer becomes arbitrary and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person not in service can never claim his re-engagement or regularization, unless he has first challenged the order of dis-engagement/termination, as held by the Apex Court in the case of H. P. Housing Board v. Om Pal and others, 1997 (1) SCC 269, and Ram Chanderand others v. Additional District Magistrate and others', 1998 (1) SCC 183. Secondly the issue of limitation was very relevant to determine the controversy as no person can claim the benefit of the judgment rendered by any Court or Tribunal in favour of a person, who has prosecuted his case diligently and approached the appropriate forum within time.;