9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a regular basis. His services were terminated on November 15, 1974 with effect from December 15, 1974. This order the appellant did not challenge. Be that as it may, he was appointed on an ad hoc basis in the same post on December 12, 1974. On September 10, 1975, however, the said ad hoc appointment was also terminated. This order he did not challenge. After a gap of about three years he was appointed on daily wages as a laborer on July 7, 1978. On September 11, 1987, he was transferred to A.E.E. Transformer Repair Workshop, Karnal, as a T-Mate. It appears that on February 10, 1990 the appellant made a representation to the respondent-Board to recall the termination order of November 15, 1974, and to regularise him in the post of shift-at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 15, 1974. He goes further and says that by virtue of the order dated July 18, 1991, the Board has withdrawn not only his termination order dated November 15, 1974 but also the termination order dated September 10, 1975. At any rate he submits that the relaxation of age granted under the said order enures to validate his appointment made on February 16, 1978. 7.We are of the opinion that the learned counsel for the appellant is not right in his interpretation and understanding of the Board's order aforesaid. Firstly, it may be noticed that the appellant chose not to challenge the order of termination dated November 15, 1974 for a period of sixteen years. He challenged it for the first time on January 8, 1991. He also did not chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intended to be effective from July 7, 1978 or April 6, 1973 or any earlier date. His appointment is effective only from October 10, 1988, as stated specifically in the order. 8.The next question is whether the appellant is entitled to any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. What impresses us in this case is that the appellant has been serving the Board from 1968 till date, with a gap of about 3 years, in one or other capacity continuously. Thus, he has not been vigilant in protecting his rights. That may be on account of unawareness of his legal rights; it may be for any other reason. After all he belongs to the lower category in Board Service. In these circumstances though it may not be possible to give him seniorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
