Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Valsamma Mamachan, was appointed as a Temporary Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on probation w.e.f. 14th October, 1971, on the establishment of Southern Command, 'A' Branch, Pune. She was not recruited through the employment exchange. She was later transferred to the College of Military Engineering, Pune, against a regular vacancy. She completed her probation satisfactorily and was confirmed in the grade under Office Order dated 25th November, 1991. She was also assigned benefits of quasi-permanency in the grade of LDC from 14th October, 1974. Subsequently, by letter dated 1st October, 1990, she was informed that her services were being regularised with prospective effect, but her previous service would not count for seniority or promotion to higher posts, though it would count for pay, leave and other benefits. By another letter dated 31st December, 1991, she was informed that her regularisation was effective from 1st October, 1990. The petitioner challenged these conditions before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1048 of 1996, seeking regularisation from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 7th June, 1974, and consequential benefits. The Tribunal dismissed her claim. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after considering the facts and submissions, held that the petitioner's initial appointment was temporary and not through the employment exchange, and that regularisation was granted prospectively. The court found no infirmity in the condition that previous service would not count for seniority or promotion. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of the Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Prospective Regularisation - Temporary Appointment - Petitioner appointed as temporary LDC on probation w.e.f. 14th October, 1971, not through employment exchange. She was confirmed in grade on 25th November, 1991 and granted quasi-permanency from 14th October, 1974. Regularisation was granted prospectively with condition that previous service will not count for seniority or promotion. Held that regularisation from a later date is valid and petitioner not entitled to seniority from initial appointment. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Seniority - Counting of Past Service - Regularisation - Petitioner's services were regularised prospectively and she was informed that previous service will not count for seniority or promotion though it would count for pay, leave and other benefits. Held that such condition is permissible and petitioner cannot claim seniority from date of initial appointment. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of her services as Lower Division Clerk from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 7th June, 1974, and to consequential benefits including seniority and promotion.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Law Points
- Regularisation of service
- seniority
- prospective regularisation
- temporary appointment
- employment exchange
- quasi-permanency
