Union Of INDIA vs. Ananda Maruti Chavan

Facts

The Petitioner, Union of India, assails a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated June 19, 2023, which allowed the Respondent's Original Application No. 364 of 2021. The Respondent, Ananda Maruti Chavan, was initially engaged as a daily wager in 1994. He was granted temporary status in 1995 following a CAT order affirmed by this Court. Despite Rule 8 of the 1993 scheme mandating consideration for regularization, his services were not regularized. A representation for regularization was rejected by the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Zone, on October 22, 2020. The CAT directed the Petitioner to regularize the Respondent's services upon completion of 10 years of temporary status with consequential benefits, including the old pension scheme.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's submission regarding the Respondent's educational qualification was misconceived. It was noted that in 1994, when the Respondent was engaged, no minimum educational qualification was prescribed for Group 'D' posts. This was further supported by Rule 8 of the 1993 scheme, which allowed for the regularization of even illiterate casual laborers. The Court found no substantiation on record that the Respondent was not engaged against a sanctioned post, and crucially, this reason was not recorded in the order dated October 22, 2020, which rejected the Respondent's claim. The Court reiterated the principle that lacunae in an order under challenge cannot be filled by additional pleadings in court. Consequently, the Petitioner's grounds for challenging the CAT's order were not found satisfactory. The Court directed the Petitioner to implement the CAT's judgment within two months and waived any costs imposed by the Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent is eligible for regularization of his services in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors. and the subsequent DoPT circular dated December 11, 2006. Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the Respondent must fulfill three conditions stipulated in the December 11, 2006 circular: (i) possessing the qualification required by statutory recruitment rules, (ii) having worked for ten years or more as a daily wager, and (iii) having worked against a sanctioned post, not under court orders. The Petitioner argued the Respondent lacked the minimum qualification (10th pass) for Group 'D' posts and was not initially engaged against a sanctioned post. Respondent's arguments: The Respondent argued that the reasons for denial of regularization in the October 22, 2020 order did not include the grounds now raised by the Petitioner. He also pointed out that at the time of his engagement in 1994, no minimum educational qualification was prescribed for Group 'D' posts, and Rule 8 of the 1993 scheme allowed for regularization of illiterate casual laborers. The Respondent further argued that the Petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that he was not engaged against a sanctioned post, and this reason was not provided in the rejection order.