Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Kumar vs M/O Corporate Affairs on 12 February, 2025
1
O.A. No. 2689/2018
Item No. 49 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2689/2018
Reserved on: 17.01.2025
Pronounced on:12.02.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Raj Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Panna Lal, R/o J-59,
Pandav Nagar, Opposite Mother Dairy, Delhi.
Sub : Regularization/Casual Labour,
Age 46 yrs/Group -D.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. U. Srivastava)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, M/o Corporate
Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Competition Commission of India,
Hindustan Times, KG Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Director General, Competition Commission of India,
Bhikaji Cama Place, 'B' Wing, Hudco Vishala, New Delhi.
.... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Rohit Bhagat with Mr. Saurabh
Chadda, Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)
2
O.A. No. 2689/2018
Item No. 49 (C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the instant OA filed under Section - 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned order dt.
02.07.18 (Annexure A/1) issued by the respondents declining the request of the applicant for regularization in services further directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization in services from the date of occurrence of vacancy i.e. on retirement of Sh. Shrichand or Sh. Madan Lal on 31.08.13 or dt. 31.10.17 respectively in terms of their undertaking dt. 13.10.08 in OA No. 1655/08 with all other consequential benefits admissible to the applicant in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
(c) Allowing the OA of the applicant with cost.
(d) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted."
2. This is the third round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant filed OA No.1655/2008. The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its order dated 13.10.2008. Para 5 of the said order reads as under:
"5. I have heard applicant, who appeared in person as well as counsel for respondents. Since respondents have categorically stated that applicant would be eligible to be considered for appointment against the next vacancy as and when it arises, this OA is disposed off at the admission stage itself, in terms of the statement made by the respondents themselves as referred to above. It has also been stated by the counsel for respondents that 3 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) applicant would continue to work in the present status. No order as to costs."
2.1. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a representation dated 09.10.2009. For ready reference contents of said representation are re-produced herein below:-
"Sub Appeal for safeguarding the terms and conditions of service of officers of the Office of Director General of Investigation & Registration Respected Sir, With the operationalisation of the Competition Commission of India and notification of Section 66 of the Competition Act, 2002 [as amended), the MRTP Commission and the office of Director General of Investigation & Registration under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is mandated to wind up within a period of 2 years. However, it has been learnt from a newspaper article titled "Ordinance to wind up MRTPC soon which appeared in the daily "The Indian Express dated 6 October, 2009 [copy enclosed] that the Central Government is contemplating to promulgate an Ordinance to wind up the MRTP Commission in the next couple of weeks.
2 As per the amended Section 66 of the Competition Act, 2002, on dissolution of the MRTP Commission, all the regular officers and other employees of MRTP Commission and office of DGI&R, shall become, on and from such dissolution, the officer and employee, respectively, of the Competition Commission of India or the Appellate Tribunal, in such manner as may be specified by the Central Government, with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other like matters as they were hitherto entitled to. In this context, it is submitted that the then Hon'ble Minister of Finance & Company Affairs had given a categorical assurance in the Parliament that the services of the employees of the office of DGI&R will be adequately safeguarded and there will not be any pre-mature termination of services. However, the amended Section 66 of the Competition Act, 2002 provides that the regular employees of these offices shall be transferred to CCI/Competition Appellate Tribunal with same rights and privileges unless and until his employment in the Competition Commission of India or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, are duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered.4 O.A. No. 2689/2018
Item No. 49 (C-4) 3 It is submitted that the employees of the office of DGI&R have been employed though UPSC/SSC/Employment Exchange in exercise of powers granted under Article 309 and are drawing their pay and allowances from the Consolidated Fund of India. They are also entitled to all the benefits of pension, gratuity and like matters. In case such employees are adjusted in CCI/Appellate Tribunal in terms of the Competition Act, 2002, it is apprehended that the service conditions of the employees of DGI&R may be altered to their detriment or may be terminated by CCI/Appellate Tribunal. In such an eventuality, as CCI is a body corporate having an autonomous status, the employees/staffs of DGI&R may lose their government employee status and thereby lose the benefits of pension, gratuity and like matters for which a govt. employee is entitled to. In this context, it is submitted that Section 8(5) of the MRTP Act. 1969 also provides that the conditions of service of the officers and staff of the Commission shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. As a number of employees in the office of DGI&R are quite young and have not even completed the minimum qualifying service so as to be entitled to pension, grave injustice will be done to them as they had opted to devote the prime of their life under Govt. of India relying upon the aforesaid express promise made by the Government of India at the time of their appointment.
4. It is, therefore, requested that-
(a) in case my services are transferred to Competition Commission of India/Competition Appellate Tribunal, it may be confirmed that my rights and privileges with regard to my status as Government employees, my pay and allowances, pensionary benefits etc. are safeguarded; and
(b) the terms and conditions regarding my transfer to CCI/Appellate Tribunal may be clearly spelt out and intimated to me before any further action is taken in this regard.
5. It is further requested that necessary action taken in this regard may be communicated at the earliest to relieve us from mental anguish.
Thanking you,"
2.2. Vide Office Order dated 29.03.2010, the applicant was placed with Competition Commission of India w.e.f.
01.04.2010 with following stipulation:-
"2. Every officer and employee will have the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other like matter as would have been admissible to him if the rights in relation to 5 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) such Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission had not been transferred to, and vested in, the Competition Commission of India, and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment in the Competition Commission of India is duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered by the Competition Commission of India. But, his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment shall not be altered to his detriment and without the approval of the Central Government.
3. These officers and employees shall become the officers and employees of the office of DG, CCI alongwith the post held by them which shall be phased out as and when the incumbents attain the age of superannuation on retirement or the post fall vacant for any other reason. The officers and employees of the DG (I&R) shall continue to assist the Competition Appellate Tribunal in investigation of pending cases and also in processing the pending investigations/proceedings relating to UTPs/RTPs/MTPs/CAs."
2.3. In the office order dated 29.03.2010, the name of the applicant figured at Serial No.35. We may note that two other similarly situated employees i.e., Subhash (Sl. No..33) and Kamlesh (Sl. No. 34) also had similar Designation as that of the applicant, i.e., Casual labourers with Temporary Status.
2.4. Mr. U. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant took us to the history and background of the matter and stated that the applicant worked in the office of MRTP Commission (erstwhile Director General of Investigation & Registration, DGI&R) and after winding up of the same, all the employees of MRTP Commission were placed at the disposal of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) 6 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) w.e.f. 01.04.2010. He submitted that the applicant requested the respondents to consider his case for regularization but nothing has been done till date.
2.5. Since the applicant had not been regularized till 2018, the applicant made a representation. No action was taken on his representation and as such he was compelled to approach this Tribunal by way of OA No.2010/2018, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its Order dated 22.05.2018 with directions to the respondents to decide the representations of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order with six weeks.
2.6. Vide impugned Office Order dated 02.07.2018, the said representations have been decided against the applicant observing as under:
"2. THEREFORE, in view of the facts mentioned above and in accordance with the instructions of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its Office Order dated 29.03.2010 referred to above, the services of Shri Raj Kumar cannot be regularized by this Office by appointing him to the post of Peon/MTS or any other post."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, Mr. Rohit Bhagat, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 drew our attention to the short reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 and stated that the applicant was a casual labourer 7 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) with temporary status of erstwhile Director General Investigation and Registration of erstwhile MRTP Commission, whose services, with services of 34 other officers and employees were transferred and placed at the disposal of the Office of DG, CCI, with effect from 01.04.2010 vide Ministry of Corporate Affairs' Office Order dated 29.03.2010.
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that with respect to the 35 officers transferred from MRTP Commission, Competition Commision of India has never dealt with their administrative or service matters and the pay and allowances of these officers and staff of erstwhile DGI&R are budgeted by respondent no.1 and paid through PAO, MCA. Learned counsel added that the said erstwhile DGI&R staff have never been reflected in the sanctioned strength of CCI/DG's Office. Thus, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has to take a decision in the instant matter.
4. Mr. Ranjan Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 disagreed with the averments made on behalf of respondent no.2. He drew our attention to counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and stated that vide Office Order dated 29.03.2010, the services of 35 employees 8 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) working in the erstwhile DGI&R, including the applicant herein, has been placed with the Office of DG, CCI along with the conditions laid down in Para 2 and 3 of the said Order, which are reproduced as under:
"2. Every officer and employee will have the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other like matter as would have been admissible to him if the rights in relation to such Monopolies and Restructive Trade Commission had not been transferred to, and vested in, the Competition Commission of India is duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered by the Competition Commission of India. But, his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment shall not be altered to his detriment and without the approval of the Central Government.
3. These officers and employees shall become the officers and employees of the office of DG, CCI alongwith the post held by them which shall be phased out as and when the incumbents attain the age of superannuation on retirement or the post fall vacant for any other reason...."
4.1 Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further drew our attention to Para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 wherein it is stated that in terms of the conditions laid down by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in its Order dated 29.03.2010, whenever a post falls vacant on retirement of incumbent or for any other reason, the said post is automatically phased out. As such, there remains no vacant post in the office of DG, CCI which can be filled up either through promotion or by deputation or direct recruitment.
9O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4)
5. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents and stated that the applicant was eligible for regularization in service because there was a vacancy available in the erstwhile department, i.e., MRTP Commission but the respondents did not do so despite the fact that the applicant made a representation before them. He submitted that the respondents had regularized the similarly placed employees while the applicant was deprived of the same. He also submitted that earlier the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.1655/2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.10.2008 wherein in para 5, it was held as under:
"5. I have heard applicant, who appeared in person as weill as counsel for respondents. Since respondents have categorically stated that applicant would be eligible to be considered for appointment against the next vacancy as and when it arises, this OA is disposed off at the admission stage itself, in terms of the statement made by the respondents themselves as referred to above. It has also been stated by the counsel for respondents that applicant would continue to work in the present status. No order as to costs."
5.1. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a bare perusal of para 5 of the order dated 13.10.2008 referred to herein-above discloses that the respondents themselves stated that the applicant would be eligible to be considered for appointment against the next vacancy as and 10 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) when it arises. However, his grievance still subsists as he has not been considered against future vacancies.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents were directed to clarify, as to whether, the averment of the applicant that vacancies were available with respondent No.1 before transferring its employees to the Office of DG, CCI is correct or not and also that under what circumstances, the similarly placed employees were regularized and only the applicant was left out.
6.1. An affidavit to the said effect has been filed placing the RR's on record. In para Nos. 8 to 11 of the said affidavit, it has been deposed as under:
"8. That the single vacancy created on 26.06.2008 on the post of Peon in the erstwhile O/o DGI&R was not filled up. No further vacancy arose on the post of Peon in the O/o DGI&R since the order of the Hon'ble CAT passed on 13.10 2008 on O.A. No. 1655/2008, till 31.03.2010.
9. That eventually we.f. 01.04.2010, services of 35 officers and employees. including 07 Peons and 03 Casual Labourers with Temporary Status, then working in the O/o DGI&R were transferred to the Office of Director General, Competition Commission of India, in terms of Ministry of Corporate Affairs Office Order No. 5/56/2009-CS dated 29.03.2010. Copy of the Order dated 29.03.2010 issued by Respondent No. 1, is already annexed by the Applicant in this OA as Annexure A-9).
10. That Para 3 of the aforesaid MCA's Office Order dated 29.03.2010 lays down that "these officers and employees shall become the officers and employees of the office of DG,CCI alongwith the post held by them which shall be phased out as and when the incumbents attain the age of superannuation on retirement or the post fall vacant for any other reason..."11 O.A. No. 2689/2018
Item No. 49 (C-4)
11. That since 01.04.2010, four posts of Peons (Group 'D') have fallen vacant on account of retirement of 03 incumbents on attaining the age of superannuation and on death of 01 incumbent. However, on account of condition laid down vide MCA's Office Order dated 29.03.2010, these four posts of Peon have been phased out as and when they fell vacant. On this account, the services of Shri Raj Kumar could not be regularized by appointment to a Group 'D' post in the Office of Director General, Competition Commission of India." However, the affidavit is silent on the aspect of the status of regularization of Subhash (Sl. No. 33) and Kamlesh (Sl. No. 34) who had their Designation as 'Casual labourers with Temporary Status' in the order dated 29.03.2010.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
8. ANALYSIS :
8.1. In Civil Appeal Nos. 9721 of 2024 titled Rajkaran Singh & Ors. Vs Union Of India & Ors. decided on 22.08.2024, the Apex Court observed as under :-
"27. Applying these principles to the case at hand, we find compelling evidence on record which establishes that the appellants meet the characteristics of regular government servants. Admittedly, the appellants were appointed on a regular pay scale. This factor strongly indicates a formalised employee- employer relationship akin to permanent government employees. In Ajay Hasia(supra), this Court observed that the nature of financial arrangements can indicate governmental character. The use of government pay scales for the appellants suggests a level of integration into the government's financial structure that goes beyond typical temporary employment. During the course of their service, the appellants received increments and promotions comparable to 12 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) those of other government employees. This pattern of career progression mirrors that of regular government servants and suggests a deep and pervasive governmental control over their employment terms. In Ajay Hasia (supra), the degree of state control was highlighted as a key factor for identifying State instrumentalities. The chart(supra) provides positive evidence to show that the appellants' career paths were managed like permanent employees indicating a level of governmental oversight and control consistent with regular government service. Furthermore, the office order dated 12th March 2003, issued by the Deputy Director (AG), which transferred the SSD Funds Accounts to HQ SFF under the overall control of the Inspector General of SFF, along with the associated documents and clerical staff, demonstrates that administrative recognition of the appellants' services was made which is integral to the governmental structure. This transfer of the entire cadre of SSD Fund to the HQ SFF aimed at ensuring better utilization and monitoring of the fund, fortifies the concept that the appellants possessed the characteristics of regular government servants.
28. The provisions of leave and other benefits, including grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP), further reinforces the similarity between the appellants' employment conditions and those of regular government employees. These benefits are typically associated with formalized, long-term employment relationships within the government sector. The proceedings of the Board of Officers dated 23rd June, 2006 unequivocally acknowledged that the terms and conditions, including the pay and allowances payable to SSD Fund staff, were fixed in March 1978 in accordance with those applicable to the ministerial staff employed in the Accounts Section of SSF HQ Estt. No. 22. The extension of Assured Carrer Progression (ACP) and alignment of terms and conditions with regular government employees, in particular, is an affirmative action indicating that the government viewed and treated these employees as long-term assets, despite their ostensibly temporary status. Substantially, the appellants' charter of duties involving the maintenance of accounts for the SSD Fund, can be considered as an assignment of public importance closely related to governmental functions. This aligns with another test laid down in Ajay Hasia(supra), which considers the public importance and governmental nature of the functions performed. The management of funds generated from the personal provident fund contributions of the entire SFF cadre is a critical function that has a direct bearing on the public interest and the effective operation of government services.
29. Indisputably, the appellants have served SFF HQ Estt. No. 22 for over three decades. While the duration of service alone may not be determinative, it is a significant factor when considered in conjunction with the other aspects of their employment. Such long-term service suggests a level of permanence and integration into the governmental structure 13 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) that belies their classification as temporary employees. The appellants performed duties similar to those of regular employees in the Accounts Section of SFF HQ Estt. No.22. This similarity in job functions further blurs the line between the appellants' status and that of regular government employees, suggesting that the distinction may be more formal than substantive. The extension of significant elements from the 4th and 5th CPC to the appellants further cements their plea of being employed in governmental functions.
30. Learned ASG appearing for the respondents has argued that the recruitment, selection, and promotion processes for SSD Fund employees did not follow the procedures used for regular employees and that the appellants were not subjected to probation or given confirmation letters as permanent employees. However, this Court finds such argument to be untenable as it fails to account for the substantive nature of the appellants' employment over an extended period running into three decades. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India8, wherein this Court noted;
"5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme- specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.
6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, 14 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128], R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."15 O.A. No. 2689/2018
Item No. 49 (C-4)
8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations."
(emphasis supplied)
31. As held in Vinod Kumar(supra), "the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time."
32. This Court fully associates with this principle and finds it wholly applicable in the present case, especially in light of the administrative orders and Board proceedings referred to supra that have consistently treated the appellants as equivalent to regular government employees. The mere classification of employees as 'temporary' or 'permanent' is not merely a matter of nomenclature but carries significant legal implications, particularly in terms of service benefits and protections.
33. In the present case, the totality of circumstances indicates that despite their formal classification as temporary employees, the appellants' employment bears substantial hallmarks of regular government service. The denial of pensionary benefits solely on the basis of their temporary status, without due consideration of these factors, appears to be an oversimplification of their employment relationship with the government. This approach runs the risk of creating a class of employees who, despite serving the government for decades in a manner indistinguishable from regular employees, are deprived of the benefits and protections typically accorded to government servants.
34. Thus, we are of the opinion that the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants is not tenable or justifiable in the eyes of law as the same is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is indeed relevant to note that the appellants' batch seems to be the last in their genre of SSD Fund temporary employees and thus, manifestly, the direction to extend the benefits of the 6th CPC and the RP Rules to the appellants shall not form a precedent so as to have a detrimental effect on the financial health of the SSD Fund.
35. In the wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that the impugned judgment rendered by the High 16 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) Court does not stand to scrutiny and the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is set aside.
36. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission including the pensionary benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 to the appellants herein in the same terms as are being afforded to their peers in the Accounts Section of SFF HQ Estt. No. 22.
37. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs." 8.2 On the touchstone of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted decision, we observe that the respondents are model employers who must depict correct position to address the issue in hand. Going by the submissions of the respondent in the affidavit dated 12.12.2023, what is reflected in para 8 is quite explicit and clear that the single vacancy created on 26.6.2008 on the post of Peon in erstwhile O/o DGI & R was not filled up. This would imply that said factual position of creation of vacancy was never brought to the judicial notice while adjudicating the claim of the applicant in OA No.1655/2008. Despite the said fact, no action had been taken to fill the said vacancy. In the event, there was a proposal to wind up MRTP Commission, pending consideration, the question of creating one vacancy as on 26.6.2008 would have been nugatory. A restrictive interpretation of "four post of Peon having been phased out as and when they fell vacant" has been given. The word 17 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) "phasing out of post" had to be read with reference to "abolishing/Winding up of MRTP Commission" that cannot be equated to abolishing of the post(s) itself. It is not even the stand of the respondents that all post(s) in the office of erstwhile O/o DGI&R were abolished. After placing the 35 employees in the services of CCI for all purposes, the said employees became part of it. Viewing from another angle, it is also a matter of concern as to how and in what manner, there was a sanctioned strength, sanctioned post and recruitment(s)/ appointments to the newly established Competition Commission of India as no material to the contrary has been placed at all. In the event, we were to construe that since the applicant was working as casual Temporary Status employee in that scenario, then applicant services ought have been phased out then and there only. The affidavit is silent on the aspect of the status of regularization of Subhash (Sl. No.
33) and Kamlesh (Sl. No. 34) who had their Designation as 'Casual labourers with Temporary Status' in the order dated 29.03.2010.
8.3 The respondents under the color and shelter of the conditions stipulated in Office Order dated 29.03.2010 cannot deny the fruits of regularization to the applicant by 18 O.A. No. 2689/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) wrongly applying and misinterpreting the "phasing out clause" . It was "phasing out of MRTP" itself and creation of Competition Commission of India which is very much in existence and performing functions till date.
9. CONCLUSION :
9.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we hereby quash and set aside the office order dated 02.07.2018 and direct the respondents to extend the benefits of regularization of service to the applicant w.e.f 01.11.2017. All consequential benefits of the same shall follow.
9.2. The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9.3. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/