-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J Writ Petition No.2587 of 2004 Snehal Santosh Talasilkar ..Petitioner vs The Registrar Dist Court Thane & ors.. Respdts Mr Umesh Shetty for petitioner Mr. R.M.Sawant for State Mr.V.C Kantharia for respondent nos.3,4 and 7 CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.C DHARMADHIKARI JJ. CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.C DHARMADHIKARI JJ. CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.C DHARMADHIKARI JJ. Dated 4.ll.2004 Dated 4.ll.2004 Dated 4.ll.2004 P.C: Rule. Respondents waive service. 2. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Thane on l3.8.l986 in a clear vacancy. After passing lower standard examination, in the first attempt the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on adhoc basis with effect from 6.6.l994. It appears that thereafter many other clerks who were junior to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on regular basis. However, the petitioner, though promoted to the post of clerk on 6.6.l994 was not regularised. -2- We are informed that the petitioner was promoted to fill up the vacancies which arose on account of promotion of one P M Badili and K T Shivale as Asst Supdt and since those promotions were on adhoc basis, petitioner was also promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on adhoc basis. However, it is conceded before us that the vacancies which were created thereafter were filled up on regular basis but the petitioner continued to be shown on adhoc basis in the cadre of Senior Clerk. It appears that the words " on adhoc basis" now stand deleted. Mr. Sawant learned counsel appearing for the High Court stated that the deletion of words "on adhoc basis" is with effect from the date of appointment. Therefore the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Senior Clerk must be deemed to be a regular appointment with effect from 6.6.l994. 4. In 2000 the petitioner was sent on deputation as Assistant to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal(DRAT) in the payscale of Rs.5500-l75-9000. By office order dated 6.2.200l issued by the Chairperson of the DRAT the petitioner was directed to perform duties under the control of Registrar, DRT II with effect from 8.2.200l as Assistant. On 29.6.200l the petitioner was repatriated to the -3- parent department and for the period from 30.6.200l to 8.7.200l the petitioner worked in the court of 2nd Jt Civil Judge, S.D.Thane . Again by order dated 6.7.200l the petitioner was sent on deputation to DRT III for a period of one year as Assistant and thereafter the deputation was extended on year to year basis till June 2004. It appears that the petitioner was desirous of absorption in the service of the DRT and accordingly applied to the Chairperson of the DRAT for her absorption in DRT III Mumbai. This application was made under Rule 7 read with item 7 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal III Mumbai Group A and B ( Gazetted) and Group B (Non Gazetted Posts Recruitment Rules, 200l hereinafter for brevity’s sake referred to as the said Rules. We may mention at this stage that two other employees who were sent on deputation alongwith the petitioner i.e. Smt A A Baxi and Mr. S.R.Joshi were absorbed in DRT under rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules. 5. It appears that the petitioner’s case for absorption in DRT III was examined and since it was noticed that the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Senior Clerk was shown on adhoc basis, opinion of the Ministry of Finance was sought for -4- in that behalf as to whether the person working on adhoc basis in his or her parent office could be considered for absorption in DRT. By letter 6.5.2003 the Ministry of Finance clarified that the adhoc service rendered cannot be considered equivalent to the regular service as the adhoc appointment/ promotion does not confer any right for regular appointment/promotion. Consequently the request of the petitinoer for absorption in DRT was declined. 6. As mentioned earlier the words "on adhocbasis" stand deleted and since the services of the petitienor are treated as regular right from the date of promotion i.e. 6.6.l994 the prayer of the petitioner for absorption in DRT is liable to be reconsidered in accordance with law. Mr.Kantharia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. l,2 and 4 stated that the petitioner’s case for absorption will be considered denovo by DPC and if the petitioner is found eligible she will be absorbed in the services of the DRT III. Under rule 7 of the Rules an employee who has completed 8 years service is eligible for absorption. The petitioner has completed more than l0 years service in the regular appointment and therefore she is -5- clearly eligible for being considered for absorption in accordance with rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules. The DPC shall consider the petitioner’s case and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within 3 months. Petition is disposed of accordingly.