The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, has reaffirmed that long and uninterrupted officiation on a sanctioned post creates a legitimate expectation of regularization, protected under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgment underscores that arbitrary denial of regularization after prolonged service violates principles of fairness and equality, particularly when similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit. This ruling provides crucial guidance for public sector employees seeking regularization of ad-hoc or stop-gap appointments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Krishan Kishore, was initially engaged as a Chowkidar on a stop-gap basis in 1992. His services were later regularized in 2008 with retrospective effect from the date of his initial engagement. In 2009, he was adjusted as In-charge Junior Assistant against a vacant post and continued to discharge the duties of the post without interruption for over a decade. Despite this, his regularization was delayed until 2019, while similarly situated colleagues were regularized earlier under Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007.
Procedural History
The applicant’s journey through legal forums reflects persistent efforts to secure regularization:
- 2013: Filed SWP No. 2505/2013 before the High Court, which directed the respondents to consider his case for regularization from the date his juniors were promoted.
- 2015: Filed SWP No. 2665/2015, securing an interim order directing reconsideration in light of the judgment in Ashok Kumar’s case.
- 2019: Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) acknowledged his eligibility but postponed regularization pending a typing test, which he cleared in December 2018.
- 2019: Respondents issued an order regularizing his services only from May 2019, prompting the present Original Application before the CAT.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order denying regularization from 11.06.2009.
- Confirmation of his services as Junior Assistant from the date of continuous officiation, along with consequential benefits.
- Any other relief deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Tribunal was whether the applicant’s long and uninterrupted officiation on a sanctioned post created a legitimate expectation of regularization, and whether the respondents’ denial of such regularization from the date of officiation was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant contended that:
- His continuous officiation as Junior Assistant since 2009, without any conditional clause or time limitation, created a vested right to regularization from that date.
- The respondents’ reliance on unapproved draft recruitment rules was legally untenable, as such rules lack statutory force.
- The insistence on a typing test after nearly a decade of service was arbitrary, especially since he possessed the requisite qualifications prior to his adjustment.
- The denial of regularization from 2009, while granting it to similarly situated employees, amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14.
- The respondents failed to comply with the High Court’s directions in earlier writ petitions, which mandated reconsideration in light of binding precedents.
For the Respondents
The respondents argued that:
- The applicant had no enforceable right to regularization from an earlier date, as he was initially engaged on a stop-gap basis.
- The post of Chowkidar (executive cadre) was not a feeding cadre for promotion to Junior Assistant (ministerial cadre), precluding any claim of parity.
- The High Court’s directions required consideration strictly in accordance with the rules, and the applicant’s failure to clear the typing test earlier justified the delay in regularization.
- The regularization from May 2019 was legal and justified, as it aligned with the DPC’s decision post-clearance of the typing test.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal’s analysis hinged on the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16. The Court relied on a series of Supreme Court judgments to establish the legal principles governing regularization of long-serving employees.
"In Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715, the Apex Court held that once an employee is continuously officiating on a post in accordance with rules, his service cannot be wiped out for seniority and consequential benefits."
The Tribunal emphasized that long and continuous officiation on a sanctioned post creates a legitimate expectation of regularization, and arbitrary denial of such regularization offends constitutional guarantees. This principle was reiterated in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247, where the Supreme Court held that employees who have worked for long years on sanctioned posts cannot be denied regularization on hyper-technical grounds.
The Court also drew upon Narender Chadha v. Union of India (1986) 2 SCC 157, where the Supreme Court observed:
"When an officer has worked for a long period as in this case for nearly fifteen to twenty years in a post and had never been reverted, it cannot be held that the officer's continuous officiation was a mere temporary or local or stop-gap arrangement even though the order of appointment may state so. In such circumstances, the entire period of officiation has to be counted for seniority. Any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution."
Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s uninterrupted service as Junior Assistant since 2009 created a legitimate expectation of regularization from that date. The respondents’ reliance on unapproved draft recruitment rules was rejected as legally unsustainable, and the insistence on a typing test after nearly a decade of service was deemed arbitrary. The Court also noted that the respondents had failed to comply with the High Court’s directions in earlier writ petitions, which mandated reconsideration in light of binding precedents.
The Tribunal further held that the denial of regularization from 2009, while granting it to similarly situated employees, amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14. The impugned order was thus quashed, and the respondents were directed to regularize the applicant’s services from the date of his continuous officiation.
The Verdict
The Original Application was allowed. The Tribunal quashed the impugned CAD Order No. 112/E of 2019 to the extent it regularized the applicant’s services only from 25.05.2019. The respondents were directed to regularize and confirm the applicant’s services as Junior Assistant with effect from 11.06.2009, along with all consequential service and monetary benefits. The exercise was to be completed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Long Officiation Creates Enforceable Rights
The judgment reinforces that uninterrupted service on a sanctioned post for a prolonged period creates a legitimate expectation of regularization, protected under Articles 14 and 16. Public sector employees and their counsel can rely on this principle to challenge arbitrary denials of regularization, particularly where:
- The employee has discharged the duties of the post without interruption.
- The adjustment order does not contain any conditional clause or time limitation.
- Similarly situated employees have been granted regularization from the date of officiation.
Draft Rules Cannot Defeat Accrued Rights
The Tribunal’s rejection of the respondents’ reliance on unapproved draft recruitment rules underscores that:
- Draft rules lack statutory force and cannot be used to deny vested or accrued service rights.
- Employees cannot be subjected to retrospective conditions (e.g., typing tests) after years of uninterrupted service.
- Practitioners should challenge any attempt to apply unapproved or draft rules to deny regularization.
Compliance with Judicial Directions Is Mandatory
The judgment highlights the binding nature of judicial directions in service matters. Key takeaways include:
- Departments must comply with High Court directions in letter and spirit, particularly when they mandate reconsideration in light of binding precedents.
- Non-compliance with judicial orders can be grounds for setting aside departmental decisions.
- Employees can seek enforcement of earlier judicial directions if the department fails to act in accordance with them.
