Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) WE have heard Mr. S.K. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, learned Assistant Solicitor General & Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THESE two writ petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur by which the Original Applications filed by the petitioners claiming same reliefs, which were extended to K.P. Bissa and others in O.A. No. 257/2001 "K.P. Bissa vs. UOI" by the judgment dated 19.9.2002 and to Dilip Kumar & others in O.A. No. 3/1989 "Dilip Kumar vs. UOI" by the judgment dated 9th July, 1993 and also to Asha Vadhwani in O.A. No. 838/1989 "Asha Vadhwani vs. UOI, by the judgment dt. 21.10.1994, to the effect that the applicants be also regularized from the date of their initial entry into service with all consequential benefits, were dismissed. The petitioner -applicants in Writ Petition No. 2543/2007 were initially appointed as Clerk Gr. II in the pay scale of Rs. 260 -400 (known as CG -II) on ad hoc basis on the dates mentioned in para 4.1 of the Original Application and likewise, the petitioner -applicants in Writ Petition No. 2542/2007 were appointed on 8.8.1980 and 6.12.1980, respectively on ad hoc basis on the post of CG -II. Their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange and a duly constituted Selection Committee held the selections in which all the petitioner -applicants were found successful. As per the Recruitment Rules, the recruitment for the post of CG -II was to be made through the Staff Selection Commission (in short, the SSC). The vacancies were intimated to the SSC for nomination of qualified candidates. The SSC could not provide the qualified candidates, and thus in order to run the Stations smoothly, some persons including the petitioner applicants were appointed on ad hoc basis with the approval of the SSC. The appointment letters issued to all ad hoc employees contained specific riders/conditions namely that one cannot be appointed on regular basis until his name is sponsored by the SSC; and that their services can be terminated without notice or disclosing reasons; and further that it will not confer any right on them of regular appointment. It was also clearly stipulated that the period of their service on ad hoc basis will not be counted for seniority in service.
(3.) THE petitioners were thereafter subjected to a special examination conducted by the SSC in the year 1982/1983 for the post of CG -II in which all the applicants qualified. They were regularized as CG -II on different dates in the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. All the petitioners have thereafter enjoyed subsequent promotions. It appears that one Asha Vadhwani filed O.A. No. 838/1989 on 21.10.1994 seeking regularization from the date of her initial appointment on ad hoc basis. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh reported in : 1992 SCC (L & S) 825 and H.C. Putta Swamy vs. Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court reported in : AIR 1991 SC 295, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed to consider her regularization on the post of CG -II from the date of her initial appointment. The orders were carried out. Following the orders in Asha Vadhwani's case, other similarly situated employees were also granted relief by the Central Administrative Tribunal subsequently in O.A. No. 3/1989 "Dilip Kumar vs. UOI" by order dt. 9.7.1993 and in O.A. No. 257/2001 "K.P. Bissa vs. Union of India" by order dated 19.9.2002.;