- (1.) The Chandigarh Administration has challenged the order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that the original applicant was entitled to grant of age relaxation as per the policy dated 08.04.2005 (A-15). It is pertinent to mention that the original applicant-respondent has been working with the petitioner- Administration on contractual basis and by the time regular process of appointment was initiated, she had become overage. Her representation was rejected vide order dated 09.02.2010, which has been set aside by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the original applicant-respondent has been declared as eligible for appointment insofar as the condition of her age is concerned.
(2.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner-Administration issued a public notice for filling up the posts of Occupational Therapist in the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 in the Regional Institute for Mentally Handicapped, Sector 32, Chandigarh. For the aforesaid purpose, an advertisement dated 07.06.2009 (A-7) was issued inviting application from all eligible candidates. In the note, provision was made for age relaxation which reads as under: " XXX XXX XXX. Age relaxation shall be applicable to the post advertised/ notified for respective categories only as per rules. 2. Age relaxation :- Upper age limit will be relaxed to 10 years. Further relaxation for SC -05 years, OBC 03 years, widows/ deserted women/ women judicially separated from their husbands, who are not married- 10 years, Govt. Employees through Proper Channel-05 years, will be given.
(3.) No age relaxation will be given to the employees of Board/ Corporation/ Autonomous Bodies etc. XXX XXX XXX. 3. It is not disputed that she was working on the post of Junior Occupational Therapist on contract basis, as is evident from her appointment letter dated 30.08.2000 (A-2), on a consolidated salary of Rs. 6000/- per month. She was given extension from time to time and was working till date. The total period of experience gained by her is more than 10 years. The Tribunal has found that she was appointed and then has been working as a result of open selection for final appointment and her appointment was not as a back door entry. The cut-off date given in the advertisement (A-7) is 01.01.2009 and the upper age limit could be relaxed upto 10 years, with further relaxation for candidates belonging to SC category for another 5 years. The original applicant-respondent was overage by 9 years, 1 month and 24 days. The original applicant-respondent was permitted to appear provisionally in the written test and then for interview held on 31.12.2009 (A-13). On the basis of a policy decision dated 09.02.2010 (A-1), the claim of the original applicant-respondent for age relaxation was rejected on the excuse that it would not be in consonance with the constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the case of the original applicant-respondent was fully covered by the policy prevalent in the department of the petitioner prior to 09.02.2010 and proceeded to hold that the advice dated 09.02.2010 (A-1) cannot be made the basis for rejection of her claim for relaxation of age. In that regard, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Steel Authority of India & others v. National Union Water Fron Workers & others, 2001 7 JT 268 and State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1. It has been concluded that the expression 'employee' would include persons employed on salary or wage whether they are working on contractual, short-term or ad hoc basis. In that regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamunkuruk and others, 2008 11 SCC 10.;