385 of 1991 before the Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, The Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, by its order dated 26.2.1993, directed the respondents to frame a scheme for giving regular appointments to 900 and odd employees who had been temporarily appointed for the 1981 census, as and when vacancies arose and to companysider their case for regularisation.
It was in the companytext of this order that when the Coding and Editing Cells were opened in March 1993, re employment was given to 465 retrenched employee as set out above.
3748 of 1990 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in which the High Court gave an interim order dated 18.12.1990 in which it gave a direction to the State Government to appoint these retrenched employees in the Census Department if they were found eligible and fit for the job.
As a result, 465 retrenched employees were re employed in the Regional Tabulation Offices.
In view of the above order of the Allahabad High Court, such of the employees who were retrenched on 30.6.1984 and who applied and were eligible, were re engaged on a fixed pay for a fixed period on companytract basis in the Regional Tabulation Offices.
The respondents were directed to frame a scheme within three months which would companytain the appointment of 900 or remaining employees and their absorption and regularisation in the Census Department or in any other department.
No budgetary sanction for the posts in Regional Tabula tion Offices existed beyond 31st of December, 1992.
In the case of Sandeep Kumar and others etc.
As per the above orders, the retrenched employees of 30.6.1984 and of 31.12.1992 were engaged on a fixed pay companytract basis for this work.
Being aggrieved by these two orders of the Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Union of India has filed the present appeals before us.
On companypletion of work, the Regional Tabula tion Offices were closed down on 31.12.1992.
However, Coding and Editing Cells were opened in March 1993 for the 1991 census operations.
In May 1991, Regional Tabulation Offices were opened for the 1991 census operations.
Thereafter just before the 1991 census, an Association of these retrenched employees filed a Writ Petition No.
The work of the Tabulation Offices was temporary in nature, being companynected with the 1991 census.
The budgetary sanction for Coding and Editing Cells also lapsed on 28.2.1994.
The Coding and Editing Cells were closed down on 28.2.1994 on companypletion of work.
Once again, the respondents were directed to frame a scheme within a period of three months.
Some of the affected employees in the Census Department made an application being OA No.
Around the same time, another application was filed by some ex employees of the Census Department who were similarly situated being OA No.
Thereupon the engagement of employees who were re engaged in the Regional Tabulation Offices also came to an end.
A special leave petition against this order was dismissed.
Thus, in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava Smt. ,
1993 Suppl.
Consequently, the employees who were engaged for the Coding and Editing Cells for the 1991 census operations were also retrenched on 28.2.1994.
1493 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for their re employment absorption adjustment in the Census Department or in any other Government Department.
In the meanwhile.
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others etc.,
The posts were number to be filled by outsiders.
These Junior Engineers were employed on a daily rated basis.
1992 4 SCC 33 the appointment of the respondent was purely companytractual and on an ad hoc basis on a companysolidated pay for a fixed period.
1 SCC 525 daily rated Junior Engineers were employed by the City Board, Ghaziabad in a temporary project known as the Slum Clearance Project, The project was financed partly by the State of Uttar Pradesh and partly by the World Bank funds.
The period of companytract was extended for one year and thereafter the post was abolished.
This Court held that looking to the nature of appointment, since the companytractual period had expired, the respondent had numberright to companytinue.
