Shri K. Prem Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Shri M Hamza, vide Order No. 08 dated 6th December 1996 under the respondent No. 5, the petitioners were discharging their duties as a full-time employee for 8 hours a day. b) The petitioner No. 1 initially filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, Circuit Bench sitting at Port Blair, being OA. No. 50 of 1997 seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to regularise his service. The said application was disposed of vide Order dated 12th July 1999, whereby the learned tribunal directed the respondent authorities to consider the creation of a regular post and framing of recruitment rules, and to induct the petitioner if the petitioner No. 1 is otherwise found suitable. c) Despite such direction, the respondent authorities did not comply with the said order, as such a contempt application has been filed and ultimately the respondent authorities have given an undertaking to implement the said order as such contempt application was dismissed. d) Subsequently, vide order dated 20th February, 2001, the respondent No. 5 passed a speaking order, thereby negated the claim of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners, along with one Mohammed, filed a Second Original application, being O.A. No. 78/AN/2005 before the learned tribunal seeking directions 4 upon the respondent authorities to regularise the service of the petitioners. e) After hearing the parties, vide Order dated 22nd May 2007, the learned tribunal allowed the application, and directed the respondent authorities to consider in detail the entire functional responsibility of Choudhary, work out the total number of full time Choudharies and frame necessary recruitment rules, reflecting therein the total number of posts of Choudhary, keeping in view of the facts that the petitioners had been performing the duties of Choudhary for the past decade plus, consider the case of the petitioners for regularization as Choudharies. f) Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, the Respondents challenged the said impugned order dated 22nd May 2007 by preferring a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court by way of writ petition being WPCT No. 178 of 2007, which was finally dismissed on September 5, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a contempt application before the Learned Tribunal, being CP No. 8 of 2008. g) At the same time, the respondent authorities preferred a Special Leave Petition against the order dated 5th September 2007 passed by the Ld. Tribunal before the Supreme Court of India, and vide order dated 5th December 2008, the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent Authorities was dismissed. 5 h) Despite dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the respondents/administration filed a Miscellaneous application, being MA No. 5/AN/2011, in the contempt application being CPC No. 8/2008. i) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case vide Order dated 16.02.2011, the Learned Tribunal dismissed said Miscellaneous application by imposing a cost of Rs. 250/-, and issued a rule upon the Administrator issuing show cause as to why a contempt of court proceeding should not be initiated against them for non-implementation of the order of the tribunal, which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. j) After the issuance of the Showcause notice, the said contempt application was taken up for hearing on 16.12.2011, wherein the respondent administration filed an affidavit of compliance, thereby informing the court that the petitioners have been appointed on an ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months against a Group D post. A supernumerary post will be created for all the 49 Choudharies. A necessary proposal was sent to the Union of India on 14.12.2009, and the financial implications were worked out on the presumption that the post would be sanctioned from December 2009. Draft Recruitment Rule had been forwarded, and 6 months' time was sought for the full implementation of the order. However, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the 6 respondents have failed to implement the order of the Tribunal and therefore granted 8 weeks' time from the date of receipt of the order for full compliance of the order. In the event the order is not complied with, the Union Home Secretary/Lt. Governor will appear in person on the next date for further proceedings in the matter. As such, the Miscellaneous application for extension of time, being MA No. 45/AN/2011, was finally stood disposed of. k) In the contempt application, the respondent authorities filed another affidavit of compliance without complying with the said order of the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal vide order dated 27th April 2012, was pleased to order that the Recruitment Rules, to be framed, would be enforced from the date of the judgement i.e. 22nd May 2007 and the regularization of the petitioner will also relate to the said date with consequential benefits. l) The respondent authorities, in compliance with the order dated 27th April 2012, passed in MA No. 27 of 2012, issued Order No. 868 dated 24th August 2012, whereby the appointment of the petitioners were given effect from 22nd May 2007 and in the said order there was no specification with regard to scale of pay and also there was no release the service benefit of the petitioner from the date of their initial engagement. However, subsequently, by means of an Office Order No. 384 dated 17th September 2012, the 7 respondent authorities re-fixed the pay of the petitioners with effect from 22nd May 2007 in the pay Band I of Rs. 5200-2200 with grade pay of Rs. 1800/-. m) The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 27th April 2012 passed in MA No. 27/AN/2012 in O.A. No. 78/AN/2005 preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, after hearing the parties set aside the order passed in Miscellaneous application and while passing the said order it was made clear that it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the action of the administration, if the petitioners are aggrieved by such action of the administration passed under the dint of the order dated 27th April 2012. The petitioner waited for a year, when the administration were sitting tight over the issue, finding no other alternative the petitioners preferred the third Original application being OA No. 351/384 of 2018 before the Learned Tribunal seeking the following relief prayed therein which are as inter alia: a) Leave may be granted to move the petitioners to file the instant application jointly under Rule 4(5) (a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (procedure) Rules,1987 as all the petitioners have a common grievance and they are aggrieved by the action on the respondents for not considering the legitimate claim of the petitioners for the release of arrears, seniority, framing of recruitment Rules, Pensionary benefits, annual increments and non realease of the sevice benefits from the date of the initial appointment. 8 b) An order be passed directing the respondents authorities to frame the recruitment authoritites to frame the recruitment rules for the post of choudhary by regularizing the service of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment by creating the promotional avenues as per the Andaman & Nicobar Land Revenue and Land Reform Regulation, 1966 thereby extending financial benefits petitioners by releasing the arrears from the date af mitial appointment c) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities to the Recruitment Rules and release all consequential benefits from their date of initial appointment to the post of Choudhary. d) An order be passed directing respondents authorities to release the entire arrears to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment to the post of Choudhary. e) An order be passed directing the same respondent authorities to transmit the case records before this Hon'ble Court, SO that after perusing the conscionable justice may be rendered to the petitioner; f) Any other order or orders, further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

#5. Despite the third round of litigation, the learned Tribunal simply allowed the OA as aforesaid and relegated the matter to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the applicants in the light of the judgement passed by the Supreme Court of India and extended the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a time frame without allowing their legitimate claim for the release of 9 arrears, seniority, framing of recruitment Rules, Pensionary benefits, annual increments from the date of the initial appointment. Hence, the applicants, being aggrieved, filed this Petition. CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANTS

#6. Learned Counsel for applicants submitted that similarly situated employees had their services regularised from the date of their initial engagement pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the same time, the applicants are also entitled to regularisation of their services from the date of their initial engagement, along with arrears, seniority, pensionary benefits, and other consequential benefits.

#7. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: i) ONGC Versus Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others1, decided on 17.04.2015, particularly paragraph nos. 1,9,25,27,39 and 42; ii) Union Of India Rep By Government of….Vs.Velajagan, 2025 SCC Online SC 837, decided on 4th February 2025; iii) State of West Bengal and others-Versus-Pantha Chatterjee and others2, decided on 07.07.2003, particularly paragraphs No.2,3,4,16,18 and 19;