A.P. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by Shri Chanchal Kr. Chowdhury and six others against the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and three others.
(2.) The applicants were initially appointed as Non -Industrial Civilian Defence Service Employees on casual basis by respondent No. 2. There was technical break in their service as such. Ultimately, their services were regularised in the posts of Lower Division Clerk with effect from different dates from 1971 to 1982. While regularising their services the respondents had not taken into account the services rendered by them in their respective posts on casual basis. The Ministry of Defence by its letter, dated Q4.11.1967, directed that the past services rendered by the casual non industrial personnel who were converted as regular non -industrial employees would be treated as if such past service had been rendered in regular capacity. In that letter it was further mentioned that even the broken period of past casual services should be taken into account. The applicants state that although they had fulfilled the condition laid down in the aforesaid circular the respondent authorities had denied the benefits of their casual service stretching from 2 to 7 years. The applicants point out that in similar cases the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench decided that such past services, on casual basis should be counted and in that light directed the respondent authorities of the case before it to regularise the services of the applicants from the dates of their initial appointment. The applicants further state that some other employees of Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and succeeded and while disposing of their application the Hon'ble Court directed the respondents to regularise the services of the writ applicants from the respective dates of their initial appointment. In both the cases mentioned above the concerned respondents had complied with the directions given. The applicants being equally circumstanced made a prayer to the concerned authority for extending such benefits to them. In its reply respondent No. 3 intimated that such benefits would be applicable to the applicants of those cases. Feeling aggrieved by that the applicants filed the instant application praying for issuing direction upon the respondents so that they may be regularised from the respective dates of their initial appointment on casual basis.
(3.) The claim of the applicants has been contested by the respondents.;