- (1.) 1. Heard Sri Amit Sthalekar for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents (hereinafter referred to as the applicant-respondents). With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.10.2005 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" disposing of Original Application No. 728 of 2004 directing the respondents (i.e. the petitioners before this Court) to verify the fact whether any of the private respondents before this Court with less than 206 days of service had been regularized in the past and if so, action should be taken to have the applicants' services also regularized if those good grounds are there in respect of such respondents, it further says that if not, the applicant-respondents shall be kept in job as casual labour, subject to availability of work but in such a fashion that the seniors amongst the applicant-respondents and similarly placed are given adequate days of work so as to fulfil the requirement of 206 days. Attempts should be made to see that all are able to fulfil the requirement and no new hands shall be taken by displacing the applicant-respondents. In case any of the applicant-respondents are not functioning preference should be given to such casual labours as and when work is available. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Government Order No. 49014/19/84- Esstt (C) dated 16.10.1984 issued by the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, only such persons working in Group-D posts having been employed for at least 206 days in a year and continued to be employed for two calendar years are liable to be considered for regularization against the existing vacancies. The respondents No. 1 to 21 had never been employed for 206 days in a year and, therefore, the said Government Order was not applicable thereupon. This was the admitted position. In para 4.4 of the Original Application, the respondents No. 1 to 21 have clearly stated that they had worked from 1984 to 1994 meaning thereby they were not in employment after 1994 and the Original Application was filed in 2003, yet the same was entertained by the Tribunal and the impugned judgment was passed without looking to the fact that it was beyond limitation. He lastly contended that even the directions given by the Tribunal are beyond the pleading and relief sought by the respondents and, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Sri Srivastava, however, contended that since some other persons, who have networked for 206 days yet have been regularised, hence the respondents 1 to 21 are also entitled for the same treatment and, therefore, no error has been committed by the Tribunal in granting the said relief. He further contended that even otherwise the order of the Tribunal is only to keep the names of the respondents No. 1 to 21 in the temporary labour register and to employ them against the existing vacancies since they are considered for the regularization in accordance with law and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in our view, the writ petition deserves to succeed. In para 4.4 of the Original Application, the respondent No. 1 to 21 have clearly pleaded as under: "4.4 That the details given above clearly bear out that the Applicants are working right from 1986 upto 1994 but they are arbitrarily kept out of service as soon as 15 days are complete.";