ORDER
Neena Ranjan, Member (A)
1. In the present OA the applicant challenges the order of the respondents in not granting him seniority from March, 1994, i.e., from the date of his initial appointment on the pretext that the applicant was engaged in service by order dated 6.8.2003.
2. The facts in short are as under:
(i) that in 1994 applicant was appointed as a causal labourer on his name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In 1995 respnodents held a selection for appointment to the post of Nursing Orderly and his case was not considered because of non-sponsorship by the Employment Exchange. He filed an OA No. 2399/1995 which was disposed of on 26.3.1996 directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant along with others who have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange;
(ii) that in the year 1997 applicant along with 4 others filed OA No. 2851 of 1997 for grant of temporary status which was disposed of on 20.7.1998 with the following directions:
In view of the above, I consider that the only direction that can be given is that the applicants may also be considered for the direct recruitment posts, on merit, alongwith others who may be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the applicants, if they make a request to that effect within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with other candidates who may be sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
(iii) that the applicant again filed an OA No. 546/2001 for age relaxation for temporary status employment. The OA was disposed off on 6.9.2002 by giving direction to the respondents for relaxation as per DOP&T instructions on the subject. Thereafter an order was issued on 6.8.2003 appointing the applicant as Nursing Orderly in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200 by giving age relaxation.
(iv) that applicant immediately thereafter filed CP No. 232 of 2003 in OA No. 546/2001 which was disposed of in the following terms:
As the appointment order has been issued by the respondents, CP has become infructuous. Accordingly, CP is dismissed. Notice issued to the respondent No. 2 is discharged.
3. In view of the above, applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) to direct the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present OA for proper adjudication;
(b) to direct the respondents to consider and finalise the case of the applicant for grant of seniority to him w.e.f. 4.3.1994, i.e., the date of his initial appointment in service as the same has been extended in other similar cases and place the name of the applicant in seniority list in appropriate place, i.e., above his juniors namely Shri Anil Kumar and Shri Jiwan Singh with all other consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
4. In view of the above, it is prayed that the OA be allowed with costs.
5. By filing counter-reply, the respondents have pleaded as under:
(i) that S/Shri Anil Kumar and Jeewan Singh were reengaged on the basis of OA No. 2586/99 but applicant was not given relief in that case on account of being over-age. As such, he cannot claim to be similarly circumstanced to obtain this relief;
(ii) that there is no anomaly with regard to the seniority assigned to the applicant. No change is possible in the seniority of the applicant and he cannot be placed above S/Shri Anil Kumar and Jeewan Singh. As per applicant’s own admission he was re-engaged on the basis of directions in OA No. 2586/99 but applicant’s case had been considered and rejected in OA No. 2851/1997 on the ground of overage on 20.11.1999;
(iii) Hence, this OA deserves to be be dismissed with costs.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for parties and also perused the judgments.
7. The applicant has heavily relied upon the judgment of thje Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Mineral Development Corporation v. Vijay Kumar Upadhaya and Anr. etc. 1998 (1) SLJ 165 wherein it has been held as under:
Regularisation of services consequent to final orders of Apex Court – Held in view of earlier orders having become final respondents are entitled to regularisation of their service – Respondents held entitled to same benefit given to persons in whose favour earlier orders passed – No interference – Appellant to regularise service and High Court may not enforce contempt proceedings.
8. We may mention that the above judgment does not advance the case of applicant in granting regualrisation from 1994 since he was appointed on a substantive post only w.e.f. 6.8.2003. As such he can claim regularization only with effect from 6.8.2003 and not prior to that date. However, any ad hoc service rendered by applicant could count for pension purposes etc. as per rules.
9. The judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999 also supports the contentin of respondents:
46. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit.
10. The respondents have also argued that to obtain reliefs claimed claimed the applicant must fulfil certain conditions, i.e., he must be a whole-time employee against a sanctioned regular post with a fixed monthly or daily salary. This arugment has ben extensively dealt with in the case of Hari Chand v. Bhakra Deas Management Board and Ors. 2005 (2) ATC 31 in para 6. The applicant in the present OA has, however, not been able to fulfil these conditions.
11. We tend to agree with the arguments of the learned Counsel of the respondents and find that OA is bereft of merit.
12. In view of the above, OA is dismissed. No costs.