- (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the Union of India and its functionaries aggrieved by order dated 01.01.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal') in Original Application Nos.54/2012 and No.68/2012 ('the applications'), whereby, the Original Application No.54/2012 was allowed and the order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sirohi Division, Sirohi informing the respondent/applicant that in absence of any provisions his services cannot be regularized was quashed as being bad under the law and the petitioners/respondents were directed to regularize the services of the applicant/respondent as per the terms laid down in the Scheme and, in view of the said order, the termination order questioned in Original Application No.68/2012 was quashed as bad under the law and it was directed that the applicant will be taken back on service and will mark attendance till regularization of his services take place.
(2.) THE brief facts of the petitions may be noticed thus: the applicant Nena Ram in Original Application No.54/2012 approached the Tribunal with the averments that he was appointed as part time Waterman in the year 1986 in Head Post Office, Jalore; when his services were terminated, he filed Original Application No.78/2010, which was allowed and termination was quashed and it was directed that he be regularized on filing a representation. Further averments were made in the application that the applicant was entitled to temporary status and regularization and that rejection of his representation vide order dated 03.02.2012 refusing regularization was bad. The application filed by the respondent/applicant was opposed by the petitioners/respondents and it was submitted that there was no sanctioned post of Waterman at Head Post Office, Jalore and only contingent paid employees were engaged on temporary basis, which services can be terminated at any point of time without any notice. It was denied that the applicant was appointed as part time Waterman and as there is no provision to regularize the services of part time contingent paid employees, he was rightly denied regularization.
(3.) ORIGINAL Application No.68/2012 was filed by the respondent/applicant against order dated 21.02.2012, whereby, he was directed not to attend the duties as part time contingent paid Waterman. The thrust of the application was that as refusal to regularize the services has already been questioned by filing Original Application No.54/2012, the consequential impugned order dated 21.02.2012 also deserves to be quashed and he was entitled for reinstatement, back-wages and regularization. The stand of the petitioners/respondents in the said application was similar to that in Original Application No.54/2012.;