P. Padmanabhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Government of Pondicherry Through the Chief Secretary to Government Chief Secretariat, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- constitution of india article 141; [a.p. shah, c.j., f.m. ibrahim kaliffulla &v. ramasubramanian, jj] reference to larger bench - precedent - full bench decision held, it is binding on the division bench. only if the full bench comes to conclusion that earlier full bench decision is incorrect, there is scope for making reference to larger bench. division bench doubting correctness of full bench decision cannot direct registry for placing papers before chief justice to make reference to larger bench. .....was rejected by the central administrative tribunal, the 4th respondent herein, by an order dated 01.04.2004 in o.a. no. 1023 of 2003.2.the brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:i) the petitioner, joined in the 3rd respondent department as sub-editor on 19.10.1983. he possesses m.a. (tamil), m.a. (journalism), m.o.l., b. ed., and ph.d.ii) the petitioner was promoted as assistant director on 14.08.1992 against the regular vacancy and after selection process. however, his promotion was on adhoc basis.iii) the 3rd respondent department issued an order dated 09.01.2003, regularizing the service of the writ petitioner as assistant director prospectively. hence, he filed an application in o.a. no. 142 of 2003 before the 4th respondent tribunal. the 4th respondent tribunal, by an order dated 14.02.2003, disposed of the said original application, directing the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner based on the observations made therein.iv) in these circumstances, the respondent department passed an order dated 14.10.2003, regularizing the service of the writ petitioner as assistant director with effect from 20.09.1995.v) this led to.....

Judgment:

ORDER

D. Hariparanthaman, J.

1. The issue that has to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service as Assistant Director in the 3rd respondent Department with effect from 14.08.1992. His claim was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the 4th respondent herein, by an order dated 01.04.2004 in O.A. No. 1023 of 2003.

2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

i) The petitioner, joined in the 3rd respondent Department as Sub-Editor on 19.10.1983. He possesses M.A. (Tamil), M.A. (Journalism), M.O.L., B. Ed., and Ph.D.

ii) The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director on 14.08.1992 against the regular vacancy and after selection process. However, his promotion was on adhoc basis.

iii) The 3rd respondent Department issued an order dated 09.01.2003, regularizing the service of the writ petitioner as Assistant Director prospectively. Hence, he filed an application in O.A. No. 142 of 2003 before the 4th respondent Tribunal. The 4th respondent Tribunal, by an order dated 14.02.2003, disposed of the said Original Application, directing the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner based on the observations made therein.

iv) In these circumstances, the respondent Department passed an order dated 14.10.2003, regularizing the service of the writ petitioner as Assistant Director with effect from 20.09.1995.

v) This led to the filing of another application in O.A. No. 1023 of 2003 before the 4th respondent Tribunal. However, the 4th respondent Tribunal, by an order dated 01.04.2004 dismissed the said application. The 4th respondent Tribunal rejected the said application mainly on the ground that the recruitment rules came into force from 20.09.1995 and therefore, the Department was justified in regularizing the service from 20.09.1995.

3.We have heard both sides.

4.The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the Tribunal failed to take into account the relevant fact that he was promoted in the regular vacancy after undergoing the selection process. This fact was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent Department. The writ petitioner argued that the post of Assistant Director is one among the feeder categories for Pondicherry Civil Service and that regularizing his service with effect from 20.09.1995 instead of from 14.08.1992 would seriously prejudice his career. It is also stated that there will be no financial implication as he was given the scale of Assistant Director from 14.08.1992 itself. Since the respondent Department promoted the petitioner on 14.08.1992 against regular vacancy after conducting D.P.C., the Department is not justified in declining to regularize the services as Assistant Director with effect from 14.08.1992. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 01.04.2004, passed by the 4th respondent Tribunal in O.A. No. 1023 of 2003. The respondent Department is directed to regularize the service of the writ petitioner as Assistant Director from 14.08.1992 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.