NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.8.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 533 of 2000 and for declaration that the order passed by the Postal Directorate, communicated by the Senior Superintendent of Post. Offices, Singhbhum Division, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 5) is non -speaking, passed without any application of mind. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to shift the date of his regular appointment from 14.5.1987 to 7.4.1984 with due fixation of seniority and fixation of pay.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that, by a notification issued by the respondent No. 3 dated 11.3.1983, a number of vacancies for the post of Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants were advertised and was published in a local daily "UDITVANI" in its edition dated 11.3.1983. In response thereto the petitioner filed his application for consideration of his appointment. After the due process, the petitioner was provisionally selected on merit basis and appointed as Time Scale Postal Assistant in Singhbhum Postal Division by letter No. B -2 -32/Rectt/83 dated 20.9.1983 (Annexure -2). The petitioner was then sent for theoretical training to Local Training Centre, Patna City from 21.11.1983 to 3.2.1984 and thereafter for practical training for a period of 15 days. After completion of training, by memo No. B -2 -24/Rectt/Apptt dated 5.4.1984, the petitioner was posted as Sort Duty Clerk on hourly basis. The petitioner joined as Postal Assistant and worked for full 8 hours per day without a break from 7.4.1984 to 12.5.1987. Thereafter he made several representations praying for regular appointment. The respondent No. 5 also forwarded the petitioner 'srepresentation for consideration and decision along with other similarly situated persons by his letter dated 28.2.1985 (Annexure -4). By memo No. B -2 -23/Rectt/Ch -1 dated 12.5.1987, respondent No. 5 directed the petitioner, according to the order of P.M.G. Bihar Circle, Patna issued by letter dated 29.4.1987, to join as temporary Postal Assistant at Ranchi Headquarters. The petitioner, accordingly, joined and worked as such from 14.5.1987 to 22.11.1987. His duty was of full eight hours. The petitioner was transferred from Ranchi Headquarters to join as Postal Assistant at Jamshedpur H.O. on 23.11.1987, where he joined and has been working since then. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents requesting for regularization of his services from the date of his initial joining on the post of Postal Assistant, i.e. from 7.4.1984, but to no effect. The petitioner, thereafter, directly represented to the Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi (respondent No. 2). The petitioner received a letter dated 25.8.1993 whereby he Was informed that his case for regularization, as Reserved Trained Pool Postal Assistant, from 7.4.1984 to 12.5.1987 was considered by the Postal Directorate, but his request was not acceded to. The petitioner made a representation dated 18.7.1994 requesting reconsideration for regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment. But the same was not heeded upon. The petitioner, thereafter, "preferred the said O. A. No. 533 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, praying for the quashing of Postal Directorate 'sletter rejecting his representation for regularization by a non - speaking order and also for directing the respondents to correct the date of his regular appointment as Postal Assistant from 14.5.1987 to 7.4.1984, with seniority and fixation of pay. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench by the impugned order dated 9.8.2001 dismissed the petitioner 'scase, mainly, on the ground that the petition was barred by limitation and there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay. The learned Tribunal also held that the appointment of the petitioner was on the post of Sort Duty Clerk, which was purely temporary, on adhoc basis and the same was not for the full working hours. There was break in engagement, on non -working days, such as Sundays and holidays and such engagement cannot confer upon him any right for regular appointment and that he was given a regular appointment as temporary Postal Assistant by order dated 12.5.1987. The Tribunal held that in view of the above, the petitioner 'sclaim for shifting the date of regularization of his services from 14.5.1987 to 7.4.1984 has no justification for the purpose of either seniority or fixation of pay.
(3.) THE respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was selected against the first half vacancies of 1983. He completed theoretical training on 3.2.1984 and practical training on 18.2.1984. By that time, there was a departmental ban on creation of new posts and 33 Reserved Trained Pools (R.T.Ps.) were waiting for absorption. The senior Reserved Trained Pools (R.T.Ps.) were to be absorbed first against the vacancies. The petitioner, in that situation, could not be posted as Postal Assistant, on regular basis and as such he was given chance to work on the post of Reserved Trained Pool with effect from 7.4.1984. When clear vacancy became available in Ranchi Division, he was appointed as Postal Assistant, with effect from 14.5.1987. It has been further stated that the said decision was accepted by the petitioner. He worked as R.T.P. on remuneration at the rate which was payable at that time. The said period of his working as R.T.P. cannot be taken into consideration for notional fixation of pay as he was not working against the vacant post of Postal Assistant from the period 7.4.1984 to 12.5.1987. During that period he was working as Sort Duty Clerk. Subsequently, the petitioner was absorbed as Postal Assistant when the clear vacancy became available. The petitioner 'sservices, thus, cannot be held to be regular on the post of Postal Assistant from 7.4.1984 to 12.5.1987. It has been further stated that in view of the aforesaid facts the order of the Postal Directorate is fully justified and proper and the Tribunal has rightly upheld the same and dismissed the petitioner 'sclaim on merit as well as being barred by limitation.;