Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. Having considered the matter in detail, it is first to be noticed that after this Bench had passed various orders in the year 2017, the matter thereafter had gone to another Bench, with it again having put up before me in 19 of 27 view of the orders earlier passed, and consequently, it has been heard thereafter from time to time, with judgment having reserved on 07.12.2019.

32. Though I otherwise wholly agree with Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, that very obviously in terms of the ratio of the judgment in Umadevis' case (supra), services of employees cannot be regularised and a proper method of appointment to any service has to be adopted as far as filling in regular vacancies is concerned, and therefore this court would be otherwise prohibited from issuing any writ of mandamus directing regularisation of the petitioner; yet, what cannot be ignored by this court is that the petitioner was in fact taken in service, even on a daily wage basis in the year 1990, and has continued as such even till the date that the judgment in this case was reserved, i.e. for a period of 29 years, the writ petition itself having remained pending for four years, and consequently, even at the time of the institution of the writ petition (and before that when he had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal), he had put in 25 and 24 years of service respectively, albeit in a wholly temporary capacity.

Hence, I would see no reason as to why the petitioner should be discriminated against.

39. Undoubtedly, the ratio of the judgment in Umadevis' case would otherwise prohibit any such appointment; yet, even in that case their Lordships had held that in the case of those who had put in at least 10 years of service as on the date of judgment, a regularisation policy would be issued by the Governments concerned, as a one time measure, pursuant to which such persons, if eligible, would be appointed by way of regularisation of their temporary services.

Undoubtedly, though not specifically stated in those judgments/orders, their Lordships would have been exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution; however, in the present case, the petitioner having been in temporary service right since 1990, continuing till date, even though the Hostel to which he was originally appointed has ceased to exist completely in the year 2014, in my opinion, he deserves to be regularised even in terms of the observations in Umadevis' case, that persons who had put in 10 years of service in the year 2006, and were not otherwise ineligible to be appointed to the posts in question, may be regularised in service upon policies being issued by the relevant Governments.

Thus, simply because the respondent Society (or the State Society) chose not to issue any regularisation policy but still chose to regularise persons with far lesser service, even after Umadevis' case, in the 26 of 27 year 2007, as per Annexure P-21, which is admitted by the Society, the petitioner in my opinion, cannot be discriminated against, (with what is held hereinabove in paragraphs 37 to 40, reiterated here).

42. Consequently, this petition is allowed, with the services of the petitioner directed to be regularised from the date that services of other temporary employees were regularised in July 2004, but with actual arrears of the benefits that would fall to the petitioner to only be paid from one year before the date of the filing of the writ petition.