YOGESH CHANDRA GUPTA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.B.Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Madhyan, learned counsel for the contested respondents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the application no. 505 of 2005 filed by the respondents. The respondents who were six in number filed the application before the aforesaid Tribunal praying for regularisation of their services as Casual labours on the ground that they had put in over 120 days' services as casual labour and were also granted temporary status as required under Rules, but they have not been called for screening in the fresh recruitment rather their juniors have been called. The applicants-respondents also claim that they having completed 120 days' services they have right for regularisation. The applicants-respondents worked in different establishments of Railways department for different period details of which have been mentioned in the order of Tribunal. The petitioner Union of India who was respondent in the claim petition taken the stand that the claim of the applicants-respondents for regularisation was barred by limitation and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the directions given by the Tribunal in para 15 of the impugned order contended that the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is one year and the delay beyond that cannot be condoned. The Tribunal has not considered the latches in filing of the application and the claim petition ought to have been rejected on this ground alone. Sri B.B.Paul, further contended that as provided in Section 29 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation so far as the local law is concerned, may be extended for further period of one year and not beyond that. It is further contended by Sri B.B.Paul that the directions issued by the Tribunal preclude the petitioners from scrutinising the service record and working period of the applicants-respondents and if such scrutiny of the service record and their discontinuation of working period is made, they would not be entitled for regularisation. He has placed reliance on judgments in Ratam Chandra Sammanta and ors. Vs. The Union of India and Ors.- JT 1993 (3) S.C. 418 and of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45739 of 2006 Rajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad and Ors. decided on 31.8.2006.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;