Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Heard.

3. Mr.   Rajiv   Ranjan,   learned   Senior   counsel   for   the  petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 who was appointed on  the full­time post of Upper Division Clerk on temporary basis vide  notification dated 09.06.1982 continued to work on the said post  till he attained the age of superannuation.  Similarly, the petitioner  no.2   who   was   also   appointed   on   a   sanctioned   vacant   post   of  Peon­cum­Process   Server   as   a   full­time   Staff   on   05.01.1987  continues   to   work   on   the   said   post   and   nearing   the   age   of  superannuation.   Nonetheless, the claim for regulation has been  rejected   on   the   ground   that   the   Tribunal   constituted   under   the  Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 is a  Part­Time   Tribunal   which   was   constituted   for   a   limited   period.  The   learned   Senior   counsel   contends   that   engagement   of   the  petitioners as full­time employees for over a period of 30 years but  denying them other benefits of full­time Upper Division Clerk or  Peon­cum­Process   Server   offends   Article   14   and   16   of   the  Constitution   of   India.     Assailing   the   order   passed   by   the   Writ  Court, the learned Senior counsel submits that the learned Single  Judge overlooked the fact that it is the Ministry of Coal, which  would   sanction   post   in   the   Tribunal   whereas,   vide   order  dated   12.04.2007   the   respondent­Under   Secretary   (PRIW­1),  Ministry   of   Coal,   Government   of   India   erroneously   rejected   the  claim   of   the   petitioners   for   regularization   directing   them   to  approach Coal India Limited.

4. Per   contra,   Mr.   Rajiv   Sinha,   ASGI   for   the   Union   of  India  submits  that  the appointment of the petitioners would be  regulated by the terms of their appointment.  It is contended that  since   there   is   no   permanent   post   for   Upper   Division   Clerk   and  Peon­cum­Process Server in the Part­Time Tribunal, the petitioners'  claim for regularization on the said posts has rightly been rejected.

5. The   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­Central  Coalfields Limited while supporting the impugned order submits  that the responsibility of the respondent­Central Coalfields Limited  is restricted to share the expenditure involved.

6. The admitted facts of the case are summerised thus,  Vide   notification   dated   16.03.1982   issued   under   the  signature   of   the   Under   Secretary   to   the   Government   of   India  sanction   of   the   President   to   the   creation   of   temporary   posts   of  Upper Division Clerk, Peon­cum­Process Server as full­time Staff  (deputation basis), and one post each of Bench Clerk, Nazir and  Stenographer  as Part­Time Staff to assist the Part­Time Tribunal  constituted   under   Section   14(2)   of   the   Coal   Bearing   Areas  (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for a period of one year  with   effect   from   15.03.1982   and   'until   further   orders',   was  conveyed to the Deputy Controller of Accounts, Office of the Pay  and   Accounts   Office,   Department   of   Coal,   New   Delhi.     While  Upper   Division   Clerk   and   Peon­cum­Process   Server   were   to   be  appointed  on  regular pay­scale  for the said post  and they were  eligible to draw allowance under the Central Government Rules  with  their  T.A.  being regulated under the Supplementary Rules,  the other three part­time employees were appointed on payment  of honorarium.  Insofar as, expenditure involved is concerned, the  Central Coalfields Limited was to share the extent of expenditure  involved   when   the   amount   is   debitable   to   Major   Head   '528'  AA­Capital Outlay on Mining and Metallurgical Industries etc.  

7. It is not in dispute that the temporary posts of Upper  Division Clerk and Peon­cum­Process Server which were created to  assist   the   Part­Time   Tribunal   have   continued   even   today   and  sanction   for   the   same   has   been   issued   periodically   by   the  Department of Coal, Government of India.  It is also not in dispute  that   the   petitioners   were   appointed   as   full­time   Staff   and   they  continued to work as full­time Staff since their appointment in the  Part­Time   Tribunal.     The   fact   that   the   Part­Time   Tribunal   has  continued to function even 34 years after its constitution is a fact  which seriously challenges the correctness of the decision taken  vide   order  dated  12.04.2007 whereby, the  petitioners'  claim  for  regularization has been rejected on the ground that the working of  the Tribunal is part­time in nature and it is not permanent.