9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 2033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asure. The circulars and regularization of the similarly situated employees at other places and various recommendation that were made the services of the appellants ought to have been regularized in the year 2006; discriminatory treatment has been meted out to them. As per the decision of Uma Devi (supra), they were entitled to regularization of services; they did not serve under the cover of court s order. Illegality has been committed by not directing regularization of services. We direct that the services of the appellants be regularised w.e.f. 1st July 2006 they are entitled to consequential benefit also let the respondents comply with the order in a period of three months from today. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA And HON' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qualified workers. 6. On 01.06 2007, again the case of the appellants was recommended for the purpose of regularization/temporary status as their services were required for the smooth functioning of the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax. 7. Respondent No.1 also issued circulars on the basis of the instructions issued by DoPT on 7.9.2007 providing for regularization of the incumbents who have served for ten years in the light of the decision of Uma Devi (supra). 8. Again on 7.11.2007/19.11.2007 information was forwarded along with a recommendation for the regularization of services of the appellant and again on 1.1.2008 and 31.01.2008 also, recommendations were made. However services were not regularized, through Chief Commissioner, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Right to Information Act (RTI) with respect to the vacancies w.e.f. 1990 to 2008 that has been placed on record as Annexure P7. 11. The order of the CAT was unsuccessfully questioned in the High Court; Review Petition was also filed; that has also been dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the appeals have been preferred. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the considered opinion that appointments were only irregular one, this Court observed in para 53 Uma Devi (supra) thus: 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
