JUDGMENT
I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the Order dated 7.10.2004 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 800 of 2002.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that the petitioner had challenged before the Tribunal against the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Animal House Attendant in the Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar. The following two grounds were taken by him in the Original Application :-
(i) Respondent No. 4 is not eligible to be considered being over aged, and
(ii) He being an employee working as a Peon-cum-Safaiwala with a salary in an extramural project, he is not entitled for condonation of age as per the Rules.
3. In the counter affidavit before the Tribunal it has been averred by Respondent No. 1 that to fill up the posts of Animal House Attendants in Grade-D category, notification was made inviting application from eligible departmental candidates as well as retrenched ex-project employees of extramural projects of RMRC, Bhubaneswar, vide letters dated 11.1.2002 and 21.1.2002. Names were also sponsored from the Employment Exchange, Bhubaneswar for the same. The intention to invite applications from the ex-retrenched project employees was due to various agreements reached by Respondent No. 3 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of India, Bhubaneswar, to the effect that their cases will be considered in future vacancies by allowing necessary age relaxation as per the Rules and the Regulations, if they are otherwise eligible.
4. The Selection Committee found Respondent No. 4 more meritorious in comparison with others and thereafter taken a decision to relax his age. The Tribunal has dismissed the original application holding that a retrenched casual worker is entitled to be considered for regular appointment by counting his experience and he is also entitled to be given the age relaxation to the extent of his casual work period. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Uppal and Ors. v. State of J & K and Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 2812 has held that in the appropriate cases the employer can relax the upper age limit in the interest of justice. The Apex Court has further held as follows :
“…. Under service jurisprudence as also the Administrative Law, such a power has necessarily to be conceded to the employer particularly the State Government or the Central Government who has to deal with hundreds of employees working under them in different departure departments including the Central or the State Secretariat ….”
5. In view of the above, the retrenched casual employee is entitled to be considered for a regular appointment and the employer has every right to relax the age limit taking into account the past experience and the extent of casual work period, which is rendered by the concerned employee under the establishment. As such, there is no good ground, which may call for interference by this court in the impugned judgment/order passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in this case.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine being devoid of any merit.
N. Prusty, J.
6. I agree.