THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition Nos.26829 and 26939 of 2007 Date: 23-01-2008 W.P.No.26829 of 2007: Between 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and three others … Petitioners and G.Bhaskar Lal, S/o.P.Late Sri Rama Mohan Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Vehicle Mechanic (SK), (MES/183385), O/o.AGE E/M-GE (ND)(V), Visakhapatnam … Respondent W.P.No.26939 of 2007: Between 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and three others … Petitioners and D.M.Subramanyam, S/o.P.Late Sri Ramulu, Aged about 59 years, Occ: B/Smith (HSG) (MES/183381), O/o.AGE EIM-GE (ND)(V), Visakhapatnam … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition Nos.26829 and 26939 of 2007 Oral Common Order: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for petitioners and Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondents-applicants. 2. The point involved in both the writ petitions is the same, hence both they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 3. Both the writ petitions W.P.Nos.26829 and 26939 of 2007 are filed challenging the orders, dated 04-5-2007 and 13-6-2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), in allowing O.A.Nos.716 and 445 of 2006, respectively. 4. The relief sought in the O.As., is as under: “Declare the respondents’ action in not adding the past service of Task Force of the applicants to the regular service is clearly in violation of the judgment of this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A.No.1501 of 2003, dated 07-02-2005, and it is clear discrimination among similarly situated employees and it is in violation of applicants’ Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the applicants in Task Force Service w.e.f. 23-8-1975 for 1st applicant and 01-10-1972 for 2nd applicant respectively for the purpose of financial and pensionary benefits.” 5. The factual background is that the applicants initially joined as skilled personnel on contract basis for the construction of Naval Dry Dock Project, at Vizag, of petitioner No.3. The services of the applicants were absorbed into regular establishment of Military Engineering Service w.e.f. 29-10-1983 and since then they have been working in the said capacity. While absorbing the applicants, the benefit of past continuous service rendered by them as contract workers was also taken into consideration for the purpose of Pay. However, in the letter, dated 29-8-1983, while absorbing the applicants, it was specifically stipulated that the period of service rendered by them prior to the issuance of the said letter shall not be counted for purposes of seniority, confirmation and promotion. When the said order was not complied, the applicants approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.345 of 1997. The Tribunal, having gone into merits of the case, by order dated 21-6-1999, had dismissed the said O.A., on the ground that there was a specific bar for seniority, confirmation and promotion w.e.f. 29-8-1983. Against the order of dismissal, dated 21-6-1999, passed by the Tribunal in the said O.A., W.P.No.15250 of 1999 has been filed by the applicants. The said writ petition also was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 14-8-2003, confirming the order of the Tribunal. 6. Now, the present O.A.Nos.716 and 445 of 2006 were filed by the same applicants for the relief, which has been extracted above i.e., for financial and pensionary benefits. 7. The Tribunal had drawn a distinction between the relief sought in the earlier O.A.No.345 of 1997 and the present O.As., and eventually allowed the present O.A.Nos.716 and 445 of 2006. Hence, the present writ petitions filed by the respondents in the said O.As. 8. It is the contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for petitioners that the respondents were originally engaged in the Naval Dock on contract basis. Subsequently, their services were initially transferred to the Military Engineering Service on contract basis only. However, by according a special exemption, their past service as contract labour with effect from the date of their original appointment i.e., from 01-10-1972 and 23-8-1975, respectively, was regularized. Therefore, it has been further contended that since their services have been regularized only w.e.f. 29-8-1983, they are not entitled to the relief sought for in the present O.As. 9 . Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for applicants that there is no controversy with regard to the absorption of the applicants with effect from their respective dates of original appointment as contract labour and from a perusal of the letter of absorption, dated 29-8-1983, it is obvious that such an absorption was not restricted for any other purpose, but imposed a restriction only for purposes of seniority, confirmation and promotion. Therefore, it is his contention that the relief sought in the present O.As., is totally on a different count than the one decided earlier by the Tribunal in O.A.No.345 of 1997 and as confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15250 of 1999, dated 14-8-2003. 10. A bare perusal of the letter, dated 29-8-1983, makes it abundantly clear that the cut-off date i.e., 29-8-1983 is meant for a limited purpose of creating an embargo with regard to seniority, confirmation and promotion. It implies that for all other purposes, the said cut-off date shall not be taken into account. 11. In this regard, it is to be noted that when once the services of the employees have been regularized, they are entitled for all monetary benefits, which include their retiral benefits like pension etc., though not seniority, confirmation and promotion, which have been explicitly omitted up to 29-8-1983. 12. Furthermore, an employee, whose services have been regularized from the date of initial appointment in any capacity whatsoever one was working, shall be entitled for the retiral benefits, subject to the condition that those benefits were not taken away on any other reason like punishment in disciplinary proceedings. Here is not such a case. 13. Therefore, it is apparent from the face of the record that there is a drastic distinction between the relief sought in the earlier O.A.No.345 of 1997, as was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15250 of 1999 in which, it was denial of promotions to the applicants that was under challenge and the same was rightly rejected by the Tribunal and by a Division Bench of this Court, in the teeth of the proceedings issued by the petitioners, dated 29-8-1983. 14. But, by necessary implication from the same proceedings, Pay and Allowances of the applicants have been accorded from the date of their initial appointment as contract labour and in which case, we are of the considered view that the applicants are entitled for all the retiral benefits except the benefits like seniority, confirmation and promotion. 15. In view of the above said position, we are in total agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal and accordingly, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned orders of the Tribunal. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd January, 2008. Ak