Service matter – Regularization of Unpaid revenue clerks – candidates who were
engaged to work on payment of fees were popularly known as “unpaid candidates’- kept in the waiting list, were called upon to work on payment of nominal fees under the control of
different departments like revenue Department, Settlement Commissioner,
Land Records Department, city survey office, etc. –The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th December, 1992 allowed the application directing the respondents to absorb unpaid candidates, who had put in more than ten years of service as such, by giving preference and
by relaxation of age, if they otherwise fulfill other eligibility criteria. – challenged in appeal – Meanwhile, services of certain unpaid candidates were terminated by the respondents. The appellant’s service was also terminated by order dated 20th April, 1998.- Appeal allowed – set aside their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents to take action for regularisation of services of all the applicants including the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March, 2005. It was directed to pass appropriate orders within three months – Division Bench set aside the orders – Apex court held that The respondents are directed to comply with the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th November, 2011 in OA No. 293/1998 and regularize the services of the appellant with retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction and observation. No costs.=
The Government of Maharashtra vide GR dated 30th June, 1961 framed
recruitment rules of revenue clerks from amongst persons having
qualification S.S.C. and within the age limit of 23 years (relaxable upto
26 years for reserved category candidates). Selected candidates were to be
appointed in their office to work against clerical post. Those who could
not be adjusted against the post but were kept in the waiting list, were
called upon to work on payment of nominal fees under the control of
different departments like revenue Department, Settlement Commissioner,
Land Records Department, city survey office, etc. Those candidates who were
engaged to work on payment of fees were popularly known as “unpaid
candidates’.
Their payments are being made out of copying fees received by the
department, 70% of which was for payment of wages to the said unpaid
candidates and 30% share was credited to the Government.
4. The applications were called for appointment to Clerical posts. The
appellant and others were declared successful. Those whose names were
appearing in the main selection list were appointed against the Clerical
post. Rest in the waiting list were allowed to work as unpaid candidates.
Since 4th July, 1985, the appellant is working as unpaid candidate in the
City Survey Office at Dhule, Maharasthra.=
The Secretary of Bhumi Abhilekh Bina Vetan Sangthana (Union of Unpaid
Candidates belonging to Land Records Department) filed an Original
Application No.153 of 1991 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai. They prayed for direction on the respondents for regular
absorption of its members i.e. unpaid candidates against the regular
vacancies. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th December, 1992 allowed
the application directing the respondents to absorb unpaid candidates, who
had put in more than ten years of service as such, by giving preference and
by relaxation of age, if they otherwise fulfill other eligibility criteria.=
The aforesaid judgment was challenged by those unpaid candidates, who
were appointed on and after 13th February, 1987, in view of denial of
relief given by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Civil
Appeals preferred by those unpaid candidates were allowed by this Court’s
order dated 11th August, 2011 directing the respondents to take action for
regularization of services of the appellants in accordance with GR dated
10th March, 2005.
11. Meanwhile, services of certain unpaid candidates were terminated by
the respondents. The appellant’s service was also terminated by order
dated 20th April, 1998.
12. The appellant and others challenged their respective orders of
termination before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at
Aurangabad and prayed for directions on respondents for regularisation of
their services.
13. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by its common judgment dated
24th November, 2011 passed in Original Application No.202/1998 (Smt. Rajani
vs. Government of Maharashtra etc.), including Original Application
No.293/1998 preferred by the appellant, allowed the applications, set aside
their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents to
take action for regularisation of services of all the applicants including
the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March, 2005. It was
directed to pass appropriate orders within three months.=
The order of termination dated 20th April, 1998 was set aside by the
Tribunal by its order dated 24th November, 2011. The Tribunal directed the
respondents to consider the case of appellant for regularization in terms
of Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2005. The order of termination
being set aside, in the eye of law the appellant shall be deemed to be
continued in service even on 10th March, 2005 i.e. the date when the
Government Resolution was issued. Such being the position of law, the
appellant is entitled for regularization. But the High Court was not
correct in holding that the appellant was not in service on 10th March,
2005 and wrongly rejected her claim for regularization.
19. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned judgment passed by the High
Court cannot be upheld. The impugned judgment dated 15th March, 2013 passed
by the High Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to comply with
the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th November, 2011 in
OA No. 293/1998 and regularize the services of the appellant with
retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of copy of
this judgment. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction and
observation. No costs.
2014 – July. part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41720
for full text – go for LAW FOR ALL
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.