JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as casual labour
in the year 1972 by the respondent No. 5/Railway. He
was subsequently regularised in Group-D service in the
year 1979. He was promoted in Group-C as ‘Material
Checking Clerk’ (hereinafter referred to as MCC, for
short) grade – Rs. 260/- – Rs. 400/- w.e.f. 6th January,
1981.
2. He was further promoted as U.D.C./Senior Clerk
in the pay scale of Rs. 330/- – Rs. 560/- w.e.f. 1st
April, 1985. This promotion was however on ad-hoc
basis. He was again promoted as ‘Head Clerk’ grade
Rs. 425/- – Rs. 700/- (Rs. 1400- Rs. 2300/- revised) on
ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 16th February, 1987.
3. By Order dated 1st January, 1981 he was
reverted to the post of ‘Senior Clerk’. Thereafter, by
Order dated 18th March, 1991 he was again reverted to
the post of ‘MCC’. He sought regularisation in the
post of MCC on the ground that he was working on the
said post since 1981.
4. As the respondents did not accede to his
demand the petitioner filed Original Application No.
96/96 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi claiming this relief. However, by
reason of Order dated 20th April, 2000 the learned
Tribunal has dismissed his application. The reason for
dismissing the application was that during the pendency
of the said Original Application the petitioner was
regularised from 1988. However, the petitioner claimed
that he was entitled for regularisation from 1981 i.e.
from the date when he was promoted to the post of MCC.
This prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the
Tribunal by observing as under:-
“It is stated that the applicant has been
regularised, according to the
respondents, from 1988. The learned
counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant is entitled for
regularisation from 1981. It is also
stated that the persons who had been
working along with the applicant from
1981 have been regularised right from the
date on which they are put to work as MCC
in view of the circular dated 26.7.1988
of the General Manager, Northern Railway.
But it must be noticed that in none of
the cases relied on by the applicant did
the question of limitation come up for
consideration. The applicant, having
filed the OA in 1996 cannot seek any
relief which was barred by limitation.
It is true that the applicant has been
working as MCC. But he was working only
on ad hoc basis. His right for
regularisation admittedly arose only from
26.7.1988, when a circular was issued by
General Manager, Northern Railway. Now
that he was regularised w.e.f. 1988, no
grievance survives for him. In the
circumstances, no order need be passed.
The OA is accordingly disposed of. No
costs.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
working as MCC only on ad hoc basis. He was
regularised in the year 1988 when Circular dated 26th
July, 1988 was issued by the General Manager, Northern
Railway as per which it was decided that all MCCs who
were working on ad hoc basis for more than three years
should be regularised. Acting on the said Circular the
case of the petitioner was considered and
regularisation Order was passed. This Circular dated
26th July, 1988 records the meeting of the management
with the union held on 6-7th June, 1988. Relevant para
whereof reads as under:-
“GM ordered that the cases of ALD Divns
and other Divns wherein the MCCs are
working on adhoc basis for more than 3
years shall be decided, on the same
pattern of Delhi and LKO Divn, and orders
to this effect will be issued to the DRMs
for immediate compliance. At this stage,
CPO pointed out to the union that similar
decision has been made in case of other
Rajinder Pal Singh, Pharmacist, Bikaner
Division who has been officiating on
adhoc basis since 1973 and DRM BKN is
being asked to regularise Sh. Rajinder
Pal Singh.’
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially
appointed as casual labour in 1972 and was regularised
in the said Group-D post in the year 1979. Promotion
from Group-D to Group-C post, would be governed by
relevant recruitment rules. Parties have not produced
these rules before us. However, the promotion Order
dated 17th August, 1981 is filed as per which he was
posted as MCC purely on local arrangement basis. Thus
it shows that at the time of promoting/appointing the
petitioner as MCC relevant recruitment rules were not
followed and, may be, all eligible persons were also
not considered as is clear from the expression used in
the ad hoc promotion Order to the effect that it was
‘purely on local arrangement’ basis. Such an
appointment to the post of MCC on ad hoc basis would
not give any right to the petitioner to seek
regularisation unless the appointment is made as per
procedure laid down in the statutory recruitment rules.
It was only because of the decision of General Manager
contained in letter dated 26th July, 1988 that the
petitioner became entitled to regularisation. He was,
therefore, rightly regularised in the year 1988 and
cannot claim his regularisation w.e.f. 6th January,
1981.
In view of the above, we do not find infirmity
in the judgment of the Tribunal. This Writ Petition
is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.