CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 15896 of 1996 PETITIONER: RAM LAL RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B, PATTANAIK JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1996 Supp.(5) SCR 29
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This special leave petition is filed against the order dated August 4, 1983
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench made in O.A. No.
747/1987. The admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed on ad
hoc basis as a casual worker (khalasi) on August 1, 1962. He was terminated
by an oral order on September 18, 1964. He challenged his termination by
filing title suit No. 34/68/117 of 1967 in the Court of Learned Munsif,
Asansol which was decreed; the order of termination was declared as
illegal, void and inoperative and it came to be confirmed in appeal.
Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated and the consequential benefits
were given. He was, admittedly, reinstated on July 14,1971, He is claiming
the status of regular employee w. e. f. the initial date of his appointment
on par with other candidates. It is not in dispute that as per Rule 5511
(G) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, unless the candidate is sent
before the Medical Board and selected by the regular selected committee, he
has no right to the post. Obviously since the report of the medical
examination was not found on record, he was asked to appear for medical
examination in 1987 which medical test he had undergone. Subsequently, he
came to be appointed on regular basis. But regular status was given to him
w. e. f. September 14, 1971,
He filed the OA contending that he must be deemed to have been regularly
appointed from the initial date of his appointment and that, therefore, he
is entitled to all the consequential benefits. In the impugned order, the
Tribunal was right in observing that unless the petitioner had undergone
the medical test and was properly selected in order to be appointed on
regular basis, he has no right to claim service benefits of a regular
employee. The appointing authority has put him back to the regular status
w. e: f. the date of his reinstatement in September 1971. It is sought to
be contended that once he was appointed on regular basis, in view of the
decision of the civil Court it must be deemed that he should have been
continued in service from the beginning. We find no force in the
contention. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of U.P. & ()rs, AIR
(1962) SC 1334 at 1337, paragraph 10. The said ratio has no application to
the facts in this case. In that case the incumbent Was a regular employee
and the dismissal from service was declared invalid. He was deemed to have
been continued in service and, therefore, he was entitled to the
consequential benefits from his initial appointment.
At the time of termination, the petitioner was ad hoc employee with
temporary status and he was put back into the status on his reinstatement.
When he was medically examined he was appointed from the date of his
reinstatement. In fact, they have done justice to him. Had it been a case
of regular appointment, he could not be put back into the status from the
date of his initial appointment according to the rules. He is entitled to
the permanent status after reinstatement That status was given to him.
Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the
Tribunal. However, by operation of Rule 3511(C) of IREM, the petitioner is
entitled to the pensionary benefits treating the temporary service as a
qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
With these observation, the petition is dismissed. T.N.A.
Petition dismissed.