- (1.) ALL these three intra-Court appeals arise out of a common judgment dated November 16, 2007 of Hon'ble single Judge allowing the writ petitions of petitioner-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioners') quashing the orders impugned in the writ petition whereby the respondent-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the "appellants") have cancelled the orders of regularisation of petitioners and reverted them to their original position of full time sweeper/casual labour and also directing for recovery of the amount paid in excess to the petitioners.
(2.) THE appellants it appears formulated a scheme for conversion of part time casual, labours into full time casual labours w. e. f. August 25, 2000 and thereafter on January 23, 2006 took a further decision that all those part time casual labours who have been converted into a full time casual labours be considered for regularisation against group 'd' vacancies. Appropriate direction in this regard was issued by General Manager, East Circle, Bharat sanchar Nigam Limited, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "general Manager, BSNL")on January 23, 2006 appending a list of such labours who it sanctioned for regularisation in group 'd' cadre. The aforesaid list included all the petitioners. The General Manager, BSNL thereafter issued orders of regularisation on july 20/31, 2006 and corresponding order for pay fixation was issued on August 3, 2006. Service books of petitioners were prepared and pay slips were also issued. On January 2, 2007 the impugned order was issued reverting the petitioners to their original position as casual labours w. e. f. December, 2006 and orders were issued for payment of wages on daily wage basis. Another order was issued on January 15, 2007 directing the Accounts Officer concerned that the amount already paid to the petitioners, over and above the wages found payable on daily wage basis, be recovered from them. It is these two orders which were challenged in the writ petitions by the petitioners on the ground that having regularised, they could not have been reverted to their original position as casual labour and secondly that the impugned orders have been issued in utter violation of principle of natural justice.
(3.) THE case of the appellants before the hon'ble single Judge was that, besides other, the petitioners could not have been regularised in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006-II-LLJ-722 decided on april 10, 2006 since in the case in hand the order of regularisation was issued after the aforesaid judgment and it is for this reason that the respondents passed the impugned orders reverting the petitioners to their original position as casual labour. The appellants in their counter affidavit pleaded that before passing the impugned orders, show cause notice was issued by the Assistant General manager on October 28, 2006 stating that in view of the Apex Court's decision the orders of regularisation deserved to be cancelled and the petitioners shall be paid salary as per the old system and thereafter only the order dated July 31, 2006 of cancellation of regularisation was passed. In the supplementary counter affidavit it was also pointed out that after the decision of apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), a circular letter was issued by the Assistant Director General (Personal-IV), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, new Delhi on May 17, 2006 stating that the apex Court has held that any appointment made bypassing the scheme envisaged in the constitution for public employment is illegal and the judgment of Apex Court be brought to the notice of all concerned. It is said that thereafter it was not within the authority of subordinate officials to issue any regularisation order to the petitioners. Since the aforesaid circular order came to the notice of the authorities subsequently, the regularisation orders were recalled. By another supplementary counter affidavit it was said that the petitioners were never engaged by advertisement of vacancies, inviting applications, undergoing selection procedure etc. and, therefore, their engagement being illegal they could not have been regularised in view of the Constitution bench decision in Secretary, State of karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) followed in municipal Corporation of Jabalpur v. Om prakash Dubey (2007) 1 SCC 373 : 2007-I-LLJ-1026.;