UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. on 8 January 2019

[2019] 2 S.C.R. 317

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

v.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.(Civil Appeal Nos.175-176 of 2019)

JANUARY 08, 2019

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND

HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Service Law– Regularization – Group ‘D’ workers engagedon casual basis at the Institute in question (under the administrativecontrol of Comptroller and Auditor General of India) not regularizeddespite long years of service – Central Administrative Tribunalmandated preparation of seniority list and for working out thepossibility of regularizing services of the casual workers – Orderaffirmed by the High Court – Casual workmen moved Tribunal statingthat despite the specific directions of the Tribunal to observeseniority, persons below in seniority regularized – Tribunal directedthe authorities to accord the benefit of regularization to the casualworkers as accorded to their juniors – Challenged by Union ofIndia – High Court confirmed the order, also directing that even ifposts in the Institute are not available, casual workers who claimedregularization be considered in other places where Group ‘D’ postsare available – Propriety of – Held: Direction to consider the casualworkers for regularization in other establishments was not justified– Original order passed by the Tribunal did not contain mandamusfor regularization – Order mandated that seniority list should bemaintained by the Union of India and that the possibility ofregularizing the casual workmen at the Institute should be consideredagainst existing and future vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts – Actingon the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, affirmed by the HighCourt, Union of India proceeded to formulate seniority list and, infact, regularized at least four individuals – Action of selectingjuniors for regularization, by-passing in the process, persons whohad put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair andarbitrary – Picking up individuals for regularization, while ignoringseniors shows that a favoured few have been rewarded –Arbitrariness in the conduct of the authorities at the Institute is writlarge – Having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal,

317

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aaffirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rationalprinciple and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding toregularize the workmen concerned – Such persons who areavailable for regularization on the basis of vacancies existing atpresent, be considered in accordance with law – Indian Audit andAccounts Department Multi-Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2011.B

Group ‘D’ workers, engaged on casual basis at the RegionalTraining Institute, claimed before the Central AdministrativeTribunal that despite long years of service they were notregularized. The Tribunal inter alia issued directions for workingout the possibility of regularizing services of the casual workers.CThe order was affirmed by the High Court. Casual workmenmoved the Tribunal stating that despite the specific directions ofthe Tribunal to observe seniority, persons below in seniority wereregularized. The Tribunal directed the authorities to accord thebenefit of regularization to the casual workers as accorded toDtheir juniors. High Court while confirming the order of theTribunal directed that even if posts in the Institute are notavailable, the casual workers who claimed regularization beconsidered in other places where Group ‘D’ posts are available.Hence the present appeals.

EDisposing of the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

EDisposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the original order passedby the Tribunal did not contain a mandamus for regularization.The order mandated that a seniority list should be maintained bythe Union of India and that the possibility of regularizing the casualFworkmen at the Regional Training Institute should be consideredagainst existing and future vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts. Actingon the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmedby the High Court, the Union of India proceeded to formulate aseniority list and, in fact, regularized at least four individuals.The judgment of the High Court attained finality. The TribunalGjustifiably held that the action of selecting juniors forregularization, by-passing in the process, persons who had put inlonger years of service was manifestly unfair and arbitrary. Thisdirection of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court inits impugned decision. The arbitrariness in the conduct of the H

authorities at the Institute is writ large in the facts of this case.Picking up individuals for regularization, while ignoring seniorsshows that a favoured few have been rewarded. This is arbitrary.[Para 19][326-B-D]

1.2 The judgment of this Court in Uma Devi does notpreclude the claims of employees who seek regularization afterthe exercise has been undertaken with respect to someemployees, provided that the said employees have completedthe years of service as mandated by Uma Devi. The ruling castsan obligation on the State and its instrumentalities to grant a fairopportunity of regularization to all such employees entitledaccording to the mandate under Uma Devi and ensure that thebenefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequentregularization of employees who have completed the requisiteperiod of service is to be considered as a continuation of theone-time exercise. [Para 23] [328-G; 329-A-B]

1.3 The High Court directed the Union of India to absorbthe casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question,then in any other establishment. The latter part of the directioncannot be sustained. Equally, the authorities cannot be heard tothrow their hands in despair by submitting that there are novacancies and that it had already regularized such of the personsin the seniority list, who reported for work. The Tribunal entereda finding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of therecord. Having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal,which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India mustfollow a rational principle and abide strictly by the seniority list inproceeding to regularize the workmen concerned. Accordingly,it is directed that the case for regularization shall be consideredstrictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of thedirections which were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed bythe High Court and such of the persons, who are available forregularization on the basis of vacancies existing at present, shallbe considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal had deniedback-wages but ordered a notional fixation of pay and allowances.While affirming that direction, it is also directed that personswho have crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe computation and payment of their retiral dues on that basis.If it becomes necessary to grant age relaxation to the concernedworkmen, the appellants shall do so. [Para 26] [329-G-H;330-A-E]

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4BSCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 – followed.

State of Karnataka v. M L Kesari(2010) 9 SCC 247 :[2010] 9 SCR 543 ;Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State ofJharkhand(2018) 8 SCC 238 – relied on.

CMalathi Das v. Suresh(2014) 13 SCC 249 :[2014] 3 SCR 637 ;Prem Ram v. Managing DirectorUttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman NigamDehradun (2015) 11 SCC 255 : [2015] 7 SCR 192– referred to.

Case Law Reference

D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 175-176 of 2019.F

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2013 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ – A Nos. 35395 & 35398of 2013.

Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Ms. V.D. Makhija, Sr. Adv., SachinGSharma, P.V. Yogeshwaran, A.K. Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Grover,Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs.for the Appellants.

Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Gaurav Agarwal, Raj Singh Rana, Advs.for the Respondents.

H

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1.The Unionof India has moved these proceedings aggrieved by a judgment of aDivision Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19 July, 2013.

2. The issue pertains to a direction for regularizing the services ofeighteen respondents in Group ‘D’ posts at the Regional Training Instituteat Allahabad[1]. The organization falls under the administrative control ofthe Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

3. The first round of proceedings was initiated on behalf of personswho had been engaged as Group ‘D’ workers on a casual basis at theInstitute. The grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal wasthat since 1986, the Institute had engaged casual workers and, despitelong years of service, they had not been regularized. By the time theTribunal delivered its judgment on 6 January, 2006, many of them hadput in well over twelve years of service. While disposing of the OriginalApplication[2], the Tribunal issued directions (i)mandating the preparationof a seniority list in accordance with the number of days worked; and(ii) for working out the possibility of regularizing the services of thesecasual workers against vacant Group ‘D’ posts then existing or as maybe created in the near future.

4. The Tribunal directed that in the meanwhile the workers shallbe accommodated in batches of twenty in accordance with the exigenciesof work in the Institute. The directions contained in the judgment of theTribunal are extracted below:

“6...The possible solution, therefore, would be that the respondentscarry out an exercise of preparing a seniority list in the descendingorder of the number of days these casual labourers worked as on01.04.2005 (irrespective of whether the casual labourers were onduty on this day) and on the basis of their seniority, they shallwork out the possibility of regularizing the services of such casuallabourers against any vacant post of Group D post or any newpost created in the near future. In so far as day to day work isconcerned, the respondents shall accommodate the first 20 and incase of their unavailability for any span of time, according to theseniority they may engage other casual labourers on need basis.

1‘The Institute

2 OA No 1191 of 2004

A

B

CD

E

F

G

322SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AThose who are tailenders, may be suitably informed of their bleakprospects of being engaged in view of the fact that there areadequate number of casual labourers to be engaged for day today work who are senior to such persons. Out of the seniors ason date, if any of them are not being engaged, the respondentsshall accommodate them as well.”B5. The judgment of the Tribunal was assailed before and consideredby a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in writ proceedings[3]initiated by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The High Courtby its judgment dated 23 March 2006 observed that “it was not in dispute”

that there was no positive direction as such for regularization of theCservice of the casual workmen and that there was only a direction forconsidering the possibility of regularization. Hence, while disposing ofthe petition, the High Court observed thus:

“It is not disputed by … learned counsel for the respondents thatthe Tribunal had not issued any positive direction for regularizationDof service of such casual labourers but had merely observed thatthe petitioners should consider the possibility of regularizing theservices against any vacant group ‘D’ post or any new post thatwas likely to be created in near future. In this view of the matter,the contention advanced by Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned counselfor the petitioners that a positive direction for regularization couldEnot have been issued by the Tribunal, is misconceived.

We are also of the considered opinion that the direction by theTribunal to accommodate the first 20 casual labourers from thelist prepared on the basis of the seniority is also in consonancewith the provisions of Rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute (Central)FRules, 1957 and as such it calls for no interference from thisCourt.”

6. After the judgment of the High Court, the casual workmenmoved the Tribunal in another Original Application in 2008[4]. The specificgrievance with which the application was moved was that despite theGspecific directions contained in the order of the Tribunal to observeseniority, persons who had been regularized and given permanent statuswere below the applicants in the order of seniority. Specific exampleswere furnished of the manner in which the seniority list was breached.

3 Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 15825 of 2006H4 OA No 1052 of 2008

7. The Union of India responded to the averments contained inthe Original Application and sought to contend that it had engaged suchof the casual workers who had reported for work.

8. The Tribunal by its decision dated 2 April, 2013 held that inpursuance of its earlier order, which was confirmed by the AllahabadHigh Court, the Union of India was obliged to prepare a seniority listbased on the number of days worked and to consider the possibility ofregularization against existing or future vacancies. The Tribunal observedthat despite its earlier directions, the authorities at the Institute hadproceeded to regularize persons junior to them and with a lesser lengthof service.

9. In the meantime, in 2011, new recruitment rules titled “the IndianAudit and Accounts Department Multi- Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules,2011”[5] came into force in pursuance of which advertisements were issuedfor filling up several posts of Multi-Tasking Staff.

10. The Tribunal observed that though the applicants before it hadadmittedly worked for a longer period of time than the private respondents(Respondents 6 to 9) who had been regularized, the benefit ofregularization had not been granted to seniors in the seniority list. TheTribunal has rejected the defence that those who are not regularized,though senior, had not reported for work. In this view of the matter, theTribunal noted that the Union of India had committed a breach of itsassurance furnished in the course of earlier contempt proceedings thatthose who would report for duty would be accepted on work. Moreover,while failing to regularize persons who had put in more than 12 years ofservice as casual workers, the benefit of regularization had been grantedto juniors despite the earlier orders which had attained finality. TheTribunal accordingly issued the following directions:

“21. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that therespondents shall accord the same benefit of regularisation to theapplicants as has been admittedly accorded to their juniorsRespondent Nos. 6 to 9. While according the said benefit to theapplicants, the respondents would follow the order of seniority inthe seniority list admittedly prepared in pursuance to the orders ofthis Tribunal in OA No.1191 of 2004 as upheld by the Hon’bleAllahabad High Court in Civil Misc. W.P. No.15825/06. The said

5‘Multi-Tasking Rules

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Abenefit shall be accorded to the applicants from the same date asthat of their admitted juniors. The said regularisation would beaccorded in the available vacancies in various categories likeunreserved, SC, ST and OBC by maintaining the category of therespective applicants and subject to availability of vacancies inthe respective categories. However, the applicants will not beBentitled to any back wages for the period they have not actuallyworked but they will be entitled to notional fixation of pay andallowances from the date of joining of their admitted juniors andon that basis actual pay and allowances from their actual date ofjoining. The applicants will also be entitled to all other consequentialCbenefits.”

A

11. It was the above direction of the Tribunal which the Union ofIndia questioned in the proceedings before the High Court and whichculminated in the impugned order. The High Court has, while confirmingthe order of the Tribunal, held that in regularizing the juniors of the privateDrespondents against vacant Group ‘D’ posts, the appellants have frustratedthe orders passed by the Court in the earlier proceedings. Hence, it hasbeen directed that even if posts in the Institute are not available, theapplicants who claimed regularization could be considered in other placeswhere Group ‘D’ posts are available.

E12. At the outset, Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral has urged that the Division Bench was not justified in issuing adirection for considering the case for regularization in other places whereGroup ‘D’ posts are available. The learned ASG urges that no posts areavailable at the Institute for regularization. The Multi-Tasking Ruleshave come into force in 2011 and at the highest, the workmen may beFallowed an age relaxation if any posts are freshly advertised.

E

13. We find merit in the contention that the direction to considerthe casual workers for regularization in other establishments was notjustified. The issue essentially is whether regularization in theestablishment of the Regional Training Institute was required to be carriedGout, consistent with the earlier directions which had attained finality.

14. We must, at the outset, note that the earlier decision of theTribunal was rendered on 6 January, 2006 while the decision of the HighCourt was rendered on 23 March, 2006. The judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi(3)[6 ]was delivered on 10 April, 2006.

15. The submission which has been urged on behalf of therespondents by Ms. Preetika Dwivedi is that the applicability of UmaDevi has been considered in two decisions of this Court in Malathi Dasv. Suresh[7] and in Prem Ram v.Managing DirectorUttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam Dehradun[8].

16. Learned counsel submitted that in pursuance of the judgmentof this Court in Uma Devi, the Union of India was required to adhere toa seniority list. There was a clear breach on the part of the Union ofIndia in doing so inasmuch as juniors to those who were senior in theseniority list were admittedly regularized. Ms Dwivedi has ably assistedthis Court in pursuing her client’s cause for justice.

17. From the record before this Court, it has emerged that as amatter of fact, four persons were regularized after the judgment of theHigh Court in the earlier round of proceedings. The Tribunal has entereda finding of fact that the persons who were regularized were junior tothose who ranked above them in the seniority list. The applicability ofUma Devi to a situation such as present, has been dealt with in severaljudgments of this Court, including the decisions in Malathi Das andPrem Ram, referred to earlier.

18. In Malathi Das, this Court noted that, as a matter of fact, theauthorities had granted regularization to various other individuals whowere similarly placed. Among them were persons who were regularizedeven after the decision in Uma Devi. Similarly, in Prem Ram, thisCourt observed that persons who were appointed on a date subsequentto the appellant were regularized. A distinction was sought to be made inthe case of the appellant on the specious plea that they were brought onto a work-charge establishment. This Court observed that what wasimportant was that the appellant had been appointed as early as in theyear 1988 and, by the time the decision in Uma Devi was rendered, hehad completed more than ten years of service. The Government hadformulated Rules for regularization. This Court noted that neither theState Government nor the Jal Nigam had resented the idea of regularizingthose who had served for over a decade. In this background, the Court 6(2006) 4 SCC 1

7(2014) 13 SCC 249

[8](2015) 11 SCC 255

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acame to the conclusion that there was no impediment in directingregularization of the services of the appellant and for the release ofretiral dues on that basis.

19. In the present case, the original order passed by the Tribunaldid not contain a mandamus for regularization. The order mandated thatBa seniority list should be maintained by the Union of India and that thepossibility of regularizing the casual workmen at the Regional TrainingInstitute should be considered against existing and future vacancies inGroup ‘D’ posts. Acting on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal,which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India proceeded toformulate a seniority list and, in fact, regularized at least four individuals.CThe judgment of the High Court attained finality. Even before the decisionin Uma Devi, as the Tribunal noted, the workmen had put in over twelveyears of service. The Tribunal, in our view, justifiably held that the actionof selecting juniors for regularization, by-passing in the process, personswho had put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair and arbitrary.DThis direction of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court in itsimpugned decision. The arbitrariness in the conduct of the authorities atthe Institute is writ large in the facts of this case. Picking up individualsfor regularization, while ignoring seniors shows that a favoured few havebeen rewarded. This is arbitrary.

E20. Following the logic of the two decisions of this Court whichhave been noted earlier, we are of the view that the decision in UmaDevi cannot be used as a charter to discriminate between similarly placedemployees, once the Union of India in fact takes a decision to regularizethe individuals borne on a seniority list. This decision, as we have alreadynoted earlier, was taken in pursuance of the judgment of the TribunalFand of the High Court both of which were rendered before the decisionin Uma Devi.

21. It is of relevance to consider the directions rendered by aConstitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi. Justice P KBalasubramanyan, speaking for the Court, held thus:G

“53…In that context, the Union of India, the State Governmentsand their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as aone-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, whohave worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and shouldfurther ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill thosevacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases wheretemporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.The process must be set in motion within six months from thisdate. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, butnot sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, butthere should be no further bypassing of the constitutionalrequirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

22. The directions issued in Uma Devi have been considered bysubsequent benches of this Court. In State of Karnataka v. M LKesari[9], a two-judge bench of this Court held that the “one-timemeasure” prescribed in Uma Devi must be considered as concludedonly when all employees who were entitled for regularisation under UmaDevi, had been considered. Justice R V Raveendran, who wrote theopinion of the Court, held:

“9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its properperspective. This would normally mean that after the decision inUmadevi, each department or each instrumentality shouldundertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual,daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for morethan ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals andsubject them to a process verification as to whether they areworking against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualificationfor the post and if so, regularise their services.

10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi,cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were stillpending before courts. Consequently, several departments andinstrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisationprocess. On the other hand, some government departments orinstrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding severalemployees from consideration either on the ground that their caseswere pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In suchcircumstances, the employees who were entitled to be consideredin terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose theirright to be considered for regularisation, merely because theone-time exercise was completed without considering their cases,9(2010) 9 SCC 247

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevihas expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years ofcontinuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing theprotection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. Ifany employer had held the one-time exercise in terms ofpara 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of someemployees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 ofUmadevi, the employer concerned should consider theircases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. Theone-time exercise will be concluded only when all theemployees who are entitled to be considered in terms ofpara 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

A

B

C

11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi istwo-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more thanten years of continuous service without the protection of any interimorders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadeviwas rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of theirlong service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employingpersons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods andthen periodically regularise them on the ground that they haveserved for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutionalor statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment.The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have workedfor more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision inUmadevi] without the protection of any interim order of any courtor tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification,are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that theemployer has not undertaken such exercise ofregularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevior that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to alimited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right tobe considered for regularisation in terms of the abovedirections in Umadevi as a one-time measure.”

D

E

F

G

(Emphasis supplied)

23. The judgement of this Court in Uma Devi does not precludethe claims of employees who seek regularization after the exercise hasHbeen undertaken with respect to some employees, provided that the said employees have completed the years of service as mandated by UmaDevi. The ruling casts an obligation on the State and its instrumentalitiesto grant a fair opportunity of regularization to all such employees whichare entitled according to the mandate under Uma Devi and ensure thatthe benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent regularizationof employees who have completed the requisite period of service is tobe considered as a continuation of the one-time exercise.

24. The decisions of this Court in Uma Devi and ML Kesariwere considered by a two-judge bench of this Court in Narendra KumarTiwari v. State of Jharkhand[10]. Justice Madan Lokur construed thedecision in Uma Devi in the following terms:

“7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi wastherefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegalappointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit onthose irregularly appointed in the past…”

25. The Court noted in the above judgment that if a strict andliteral interpretation was given to the decision in Uma Devi, no employeefrom the State of Jharkhand appointed on an irregular basis could everbe regularized as the State was formed on 15 November 2000 and thecut-off date had been fixed as 10 April 2006. The intent of the Courtwas to grant similarly-placed employees who had put the requisite yearsof service as mandated by Uma Devi, the benefit of regularization. TheCourt thus held that the Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth AniyamitRup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa NiyamitikaranNiyamawali, 2015 (“the Regularsation Rules”) must be interpreted in apragmatic manner and employees of the State who had completed 10years of service on the date of promulgation of the rules, ought to beregularized. In doing so, the Court ensured that employees in the Stateof Jharkhand who had completed the same years of service as employeesfrom other States, are granted parity in terms of regularization. Thespirit of non-discrimination and equity runs through the decisions in UmaDevi, ML Kesari and Narendra Kumar Tiwari.

26. In this background, the issue which now arises before thisCourt is in regard to the effective direction which would govern thepresent case. The High Court has directed the Union of India to absorbthe casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question, then AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain any other establishment. The latter part of the direction, as we havealready noted, cannot be sustained. Equally, in our opinion, the authoritiescannot be heard to throw their hands in despair by submitting that thereare no vacancies and that it had already regularized such of the personsin the seniority list, who reported for work. The Tribunal has entered afinding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the record.BAccordingly, we are of the view that having decided to implement thedecision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, theUnion of India must follow a rational principle and abide strictly by theseniority list in proceeding to regularize the workmen concerned.Accordingly, we direct that the case for regularization shall be consideredCstrictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the directionswhich were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court andsuch of the persons, who are available for regularization on the basis ofvacancies existing at present, shall be considered in accordance withlaw. The Tribunal has denied back-wages but has ordered a notionalfixation of pay and allowances. While affirming that direction, we alsoDdirect that persons who have crossed the age of superannuation will beentitled to the computation and payment of their retiral dues on thatbasis. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three monthsfrom the receipt of a copy of the judgment. If it becomes necessary togrant age relaxation to the concerned workmen, the appellants shall doEso.

27. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. There shallbe no order as to costs.

F

Divya Pandey

Appeals disposed of.

G

H