CWP No. 10319 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10319 of 2011 Date of Decision 02.06.2011 Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another -----Appellants Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate with Mr. Aseem Rai, Advocate for the U.T. Chandigarh. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The Chandigarh Administration has challenged the order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that the original applicant was entitled to grant of age relaxation as per the policy dated 08.04.2005 (A-15). It is pertinent to mention that the original applicant- respondent has been working with the petitioner- Administration on contractual basis and by the time regular process of appointment was initiated, she had become CWP No. 10319 of 2011 -2- overage. Her representation was rejected vide order dated 09.02.2010, which has been set aside by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the original applicant-respondent has been declared as eligible for appointment insofar as the condition of her age is concerned. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner- Administration issued a public notice for filling up the posts of Occupational Therapist in the pay scale of ` 5480-8925 in the Regional Institute for Mentally Handicapped, Sector 32, Chandigarh. For the aforesaid purpose, an advertisement dated 07.06.2009 (A-7) was issued inviting application from all eligible candidates. In the note, provision was made for age relaxation which reads as under: “ xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Age relaxation shall be applicable to the post advertised/ notified for respective categories only as per rules. 2. Age relaxation:- Upper age limit will be relaxed to 10 years. Further relaxation for SC -05 years, OBC 03 years, widows/ deserted women/ women judicially separated from their husbands, who are not married- 10 years, Govt. Employees through Proper Channel-05 years, will be given. 3. No age relaxation will be given to the CWP No. 10319 of 2011 -3- employees of Board/ Corporation/ Autonomous Bodies etc. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 3. It is not disputed that she was working on the post of Junior Occupational Therapist on contract basis, as is evident from her appointment letter dated 30.08.2000 (A-2), on a consolidated salary of ` 6000/- per month. She was given extension from time to time and was working till date. The total period of experience gained by her is more than 10 years. The Tribunal has found that she was appointed and then has been working as a result of open selection for final appointment and her appointment was not as a back door entry. The cut-off date given in the advertisement (A-7) is 01.01.2009 and the upper age limit could be relaxed upto 10 years, with further relaxation for candidates belonging to SC category for another 5 years. The original applicant- respondent was overage by 9 years, 1 month and 24 days. The original applicant-respondent was permitted to appear provisionally in the written test and then for interview held on 31.12.2009 (A-13). On the basis of a policy decision dated 09.02.2010 (A-1), the claim of the original applicant- respondent for age relaxation was rejected on the excuse that it would not be in consonance with the constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the case of the original applicant-respondent was CWP No. 10319 of 2011 -4- fully covered by the policy prevalent in the department of the petitioner prior to 09.02.2010 and proceeded to hold that the advice dated 09.02.2010 (A-1) cannot be made the basis for rejection of her claim for relaxation of age. In that regard, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Steel Authority of India & others v. National Union Water Fron Workers & others JT 2001 (7) SC, 268 and State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. It has been concluded that the expression 'employee' would include persons employed on salary or wage whether they are working on contractual, short-term or ad hoc basis. In that regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamunkuruk and others (2008) 11 SCC 10. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Tribunal has recorded categorical findings that in accordance with the policy prevalent before 09.02.2010, the benefit of age relaxation was given to S/Shri Surinder Singh and Shashi Kumar Sinha, by placing reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the aforesaid fact was not disputed by the petitioner-Administration. The policy decision dated 09.02.2010 (A-2) taken by the petitioner-Administration made apply prospectively and her case would be governed by terms CWP No. 10319 of 2011 -5- of OM dated 28.04.2005 (A-15). It has also come on record that the original applicant-respondent belongs to SC category candidate and her case was found squarely covered under the instructions dated 28.04.2005, which becomes applicable on account of provision made in column 7 of the Recruitment Rules which provide for grant of age relaxation beyond 35 years in accordance with the instructions of the Government of India / Chandigarh Administration issued from time to time. If the matter is viewed in the light of the provision of column-7 of the Recruitment Rules read with instructions, she was required to be 45 years of age as a departmental candidate and she was entitled to compete with the candidates coming from open market/ employment exchange upto to the age of 40 years for Group C posts as a general candidate and upto 45 years as she is within age as on 01.01.2009. Therefore, we uphold the view taken by the Tribunal. The writ petition does not merit admission. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE June 02, 2011 Atul