In this view of the matter, the companytention advanced by Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned companynsel for the petitioners that a positive direction for regularization companyld number have been issued by the Tribunal, is misconceived.
The High Court by its judgment dated 23 March 2006 observed that it was number in dispute that there was numberpositive direction as such for regularization of the service of the casual workmen and that there was only a direction for companysidering the possibility of regularization.
6 to 9.
In the meantime, in 2011, new recruitment rules titled the Indian Audit and Accounts Department Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2011 5 came into force in pursuance of which advertisements were issued for filling up several posts of Multi Tasking Staff.
W.P. No.15825/06.
Hence, while disposing of the petition, the High Court observed thus It is number disputed by learned companynsel for the respondents that the Tribunal had number issued any positive direction for regularization of service of such casual labourers but had merely observed that the petitioners should companysider the possibility of regularizing the services against any vacant group D post or any new post that was likely to be created in near future.
While disposing of the Original Application 2, the Tribunal issued directions i mandating the preparation of a seniority list in accordance with the number of days worked and ii for working out the possibility of regularizing the services of these casual workers against vacant Group D posts then existing or as may be created in the near future.
The issue pertains to a direction for regularizing the services of eighteen respondents in Group D posts at the Regional Training Institute at Allahabad 1.
3 Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 15825 of 2006 4 OA No 1052 of 2008 The Union of India responded to the averments companytained in the Original Application and sought to companytend that it had engaged such of the casual workers who had reported for work.
It was the above direction of the Tribunal which the Union of India questioned in the proceedings before the High Court and which culminated in the impugned order.
The organization falls under the administrative companytrol of the Comptroller and Auditor Signature Not Verified General of India.
While according the said benefit to the applicants, the respondents would follow the order of seniority in the seniority list admittedly prepared in pursuance to the orders of this Tribunal in OA No.1191 of 2004 as upheld by the Honble Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
However, the applicants will number be entitled to any back wages for the period they have number actually worked but they will be entitled to numberional fixation of pay and allowances from the date of joining of their admitted juniors and on that basis actual pay and allowances from their actual date of joining.
Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.01.21 154928 IST Reason 1 The Institute The first round of proceedings was initiated on behalf of persons who had been engaged as Group D workers on a casual basis at the Institute.
The said benefit shall be accorded to the applicants from the same date as that of their admitted juniors.
The said regularisation would be accorded in the available vacancies in various categories like unreserved, SC, ST and OBC by maintaining the category of the respective applicants and subject to availability of vacancies in the respective categories.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. The Union of India has moved these proceedings aggrieved by a judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19 July, 2013.
