CENTRAL WELFARE BOARD AND ORS.
A
v.
MS. ANJALI BEPARI AND ORS.
AUGUST 2, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
Service Law :
Ce11tral Social Welfw~ Board Scheme-Gram Sevika-Appoi11tment
against casual vacancy--<:laim for regulaiisation--Si11gle Judge of High Cowt C
rejecti11g the claim-Divisio11 Be11ch directi11g regularisation of the
employee-Appeal by the Board contending that the project under which the
respondent was engaged is being wound up in a phased 1nanner and services
of employees are being dispe11sed with-No perso11 ju11ior to respo11dent was
allowed to continue-17ie1~ are other projects being operated similarly and
persons engaged therein are continuing on ten1porary basis and are senior to
the respo11dent--Held, the Board will conti11ue the respondent i11 any other
temporary scheme but keepi11g in mi11d the overall senio1ity of all the per-
sons-The dispensing with the services should be on last-come first-go
basis-When vacancies arise the persons whose seJVices have been dispensed
with will be taken back without requisitio11ing names of candidates from
employment excha11ge.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 16906 of i996.
D
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.96 of the Calcutta High F
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 16 of 1995.
S.W.A. Qadri and L.R. Singh for the Petitioners.
Bijan Kr. Ghosh for the Respondent No. 1.
I
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
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 respon- H
275
A
B
c
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
dent 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 .I udge held in the
judgment that 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 FMA T No. 16/95
reversed the order of the learned Single .Judge and directed regularisation
of the services of the respondent as under :
"The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The judgment and order of the
trial court is set aside. The writ application is allowed. The respon-
dents 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."
D
Calling this order in question, this SLP has been filed. It is not in
di>pute that the project is being wound up in a phased manner and the
services of the employees are being dispensed accordingly. It 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
E
project being operated similarly, but the 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
F
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 can-
didates from the employment exchange. They would be regularised only
when regular posts are available and in accordance with the order of
G seniority.
The special leave petition is accordingly ordered.
R.P.
Petition ordered.
•
Lex