UNION OF INDIA vs ARULMOZHI INIARASU . Supreme Court, 06-07-2011
| Judge | D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU, , , |
| Parties | UNION OF INDIAARULMOZHI INIARASU . |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.-004990-004991 / 2011 |
| Date | 06 July 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4990-4991 0F 2011
(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 25200-25201 of 2010)
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. — APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ARULMOZHI INIARASU &
ORS.
—RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
D.K. JAIN, J.:
1.Leave granted.
2.These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment
and final order dated 5th January, 2010 delivered by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras, whereby the High Court, in slight modification of
the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
(for short “the Tribunal”), has directed that the respondents shall be given
a relaxation of five years and three years respectively to SC/ST and OBC
candidates in age limit for being considered for selection to the post of
Sepoy in the Central Excise department, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India. However, the High Court has directed that the said
relaxation would be applicable to those candidates who were actually
erstwhile employees of the said department.
3.Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts essential for adjudication of the
present appeals may be stated as follows:
The respondents were engaged as part-time contingent casual
labourers–purely on temporary basis in the Office of the Commissioner
of Central Excise, Chennai Zone, in the year 1999. As per offer of
appointment on record, they were required to work on the basis of the
need of the office, for which they were to be paid @ `10/- per working
hour with no guarantee as regards minimum number of hours in a month.
In para 7 of the said letter, it was stated that the appointment letter would
not confer any right to claim any permanent post in the department as
also any automatic right to be considered for selection to any permanent
post in the department. Most of them were in continuous employment for
a period ranging from 8 to 14 years. It is common ground that none of
the respondents fall within the purview of 1993 scheme, notified on 10th
September, 1993, for conferring temporary status and regularisation of
casual workers, who were in employment on 1st September, 1993, all of
them having been engaged after the said date.
4.On 2nd May, 2005, in compliance with the directions issued by the
Ministry of Finance, the appellants dispensed with the services of all such
2
To continue reading
Request your trial