Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions filed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and the Union of India challenging orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench. The CAT had directed the petitioners to consider the regularisation of the respondents, who were appointed as Surveyors and Stockmen on ad hoc basis between 1985 and 1988. The respondents had completed over 10 years of service and sought regularisation and pension benefits. The petitioners argued that the appointments were purely temporary and that the respondents were not entitled to regularisation under the relevant rules. The court, however, upheld the CAT's orders, holding that the respondents had a legitimate expectation of regularisation based on their long service and the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court noted that the petitioners had regularised other similarly situated employees, and thus could not deny the same benefit to the respondents. The court dismissed both writ petitions, directing the petitioners to consider the respondents' cases for regularisation and consequential benefits, including pension, in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Ad Hoc Employees - Legitimate Expectation - The respondents, appointed as Surveyors and Stockmen on ad hoc basis, claimed regularisation after completing 10 years of service. The court held that the principle of legitimate expectation and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India applied, and the CAT's direction to consider their cases for regularisation was justified. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Applicability of Rules - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The court examined whether these rules applied to the respondents. It held that the respondents were entitled to be considered under these rules for regularisation and pension benefits, as they had been in continuous service for over 10 years. (Paras 5-8) C) Service Law - Equality - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - The court emphasised that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently. The petitioners' failure to regularise the respondents while regularising others in similar positions violated the right to equality. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents, who were appointed as Surveyors and Stockmen on ad hoc basis, are entitled to regularisation of their services and consequential benefits including pension, and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was correct in directing the petitioners to consider their cases for regularisation.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions dismissed. The court upheld the CAT orders directing the petitioners to consider the respondents' cases for regularisation and consequential benefits, including pension, in accordance with the relevant rules.
Law Points
- Legitimate expectation
- Regularisation of ad hoc employees
- Equality under Article 14
- Applicability of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules
- 1965
- Applicability of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1972
