Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
CENTRAL WELFARE BOARD & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MS. ANJALI BEPARI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (8) 1 1996 SCALE (6)302
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Advocate takes notice for
respondent No.1.
It is not in dispute that the respondent came to be
appointed against a casual vacancy in the Central Social
Welfare Board Scheme. The respondent has been continuing
ever since the date of appointment, namely, February 11,
1992. She filed writ petition in the Calcutta High Court for
direction to regularise her services. The learned Single
Judge held in the judgment that she was not entitled to
regularisation as the mode of her appointment was not in
accordance with the rules. In the impugned order dated
January 24, 1996, the Division Bench in FMAT No.16/95
reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and directed
regularisation of the services of respondent as under:
"The appeal, therefore, succeeds.
The judgment and order of the trial
court is set aside. The writ
application is allowed. The
respondents are directed to
regularise the service of the
appellant in the post of Gram
Sevika with effect from the date
she completed three years of
service in the concerned Project
positively within two months from
date and also to pay her arrears
salaries and other benefits, if
any, within the aforesaid period."
Calling this order in question, this SLP has been
filed. It is not in dispute that the project is being wound
up in a phased manner and the services of the employees are
being dispensed according is stated by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that no junior to the respondent was
allowed to continue in the said project. It is stated that
there are other projects being operated similarly, but the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
persons engaged therein also are continuing on temporary
basis and are senior to the respondent. Therefore, she
cannot be regularised in any other scheme. In view of the
above stand, we direct the petitioners to continue the
respondent in any other temporary scheme but keeping in mind
the overall seniority of all the persons; the dispensing
with the services should be on last-come-first-go basis,
i.e., the juniormost incumbent has to go out first. As and
when vacancies would arise, such persons whose services have
been dispensed with will be taken back without following the
practice of requisitioning the names of candidates from the
employment exchange. They would be regularised only when
regular posts are available and in accordance with the order
of seniority.
The special leave petition is accordingly ordered.