Union Of India vs Dharam Pal Etc.

5. On and from 5.9.1986, the respondents and several other employees were allowed to officiate on ad hoc basis as MCC. 3 Indisputably, for the said purpose, the mandatory procedure for promotion as contained in Rule 219 had not been followed. Even some of the employees, it is stated before us, had been working on officiating basis even prior to them.

6. Those clerks appointed on officiating basis in an ad hoc manner made representations before the General Manager, Northern Railways for their promotion on regular basis. On or about 8.5.1987, a decision was taken that services of those who had completed three years' ad hoc appointment may be regularized on the basis of service record and viva- voce test as a one time dispensation and it was treated as a special case and not to be treated as a precedent. As the respondents had not completed three years' ad hoc service at the relevant time, their cases were not considered. Another representation was made by them on 4.4.1990 on the premise that at that time they had completed three years of ad hoc service. The said representation was rejected.

An Original Application was filed by them before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") praying for issuance of a direction upon the appellant to regularize their services as MCC and to give the benefit of continuous ad hoc officiation towards seniority from the date they had been working as MCC and promote them further to the post of UDC from the date they became eligible therefor. It is stated that the employees of Ambala Division had also been given the benefit of the said concession.

7. Indisputably, respondents took part in the selection process for appointment in the post of MCC although they had completed more than three years of service. Viva-voce test was conducted. They were, thus, considered for appointment. Out of the employees who had appeared in the said viva-voce test, 12 persons became successful. On or about 24.10.1997, a provisional panel was prepared wherein their names were included. The services of the said 12 successful employees were regularized with immediate effect. Their services were later on directed to be regularized retrospectively with effect from 10.8.1988.

(v) A suitability test should be held at the interval which should not be less than six months. All the eligible candidates as per their seniority including those who failed at the last test should be called. The period of six months is reckoned from the date of announcement of the result.

10. For the reasons discussed by us at some length above, we are unable to agree with the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents that the applicants are not eligible for counting the ad hoc period of their service between 1986 and 1988 for the purpose of normal service benefits like seniority, fixation of pay etc." 7

(iii) In any case no second ad hoc promotion shall be allowed.

Note.- In case the training period of a direct recruit is curtailed in the exigencies of service, the date of joining the working post in case of such a direct recruit shall be the date he would have normally come to a working post after completion of the prescribed period of training."

Rule 216 of IREM in no uncertain terms provides that such an appointment should be made for short duration vacancy only. Such orders of promotion are required to be made only upon obtaining the approval of Chief Personnel Officer. In the instant case, such an approval was not obtained. Approval was obtained only at the Divisional level. Even while extending the period of three months, the circular letter of the Board dated 23.2.1974 laying down for sanction of the General Manager, therefore, had not been complied with.

15. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Tribunal and consequently the High Court committed a serious error insofar it failed to take into consideration the binding authorities of this court.

17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, it is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

FEBRUARY 12, 2009