Regularisation of services could be recognised under a particular rule/ policy and not otherwise: DB

JAMMU: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Srinagar Wing comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Mohan Lal held that regularisation of services could be recognised under a particular rule/ policy of Government and not otherwise. DB further said that there is absolutely no scope for two opinions over it. Division Bench, while allowing a petition filed by Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India and others, set-aside the order of passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, for short Tribunal, in OA no. 062/0004 of 2016 titled Saif-ud-din Lone & others v. Union of India and others.

DB after hearing both the sides observed that the court is left with one question to answer, i.e. Whether the Tribunal was justified to grant the ordered relief in favour of the respondents in absence of any Policy, Scheme, Rule, Statute or any other provision of law, or not? DB further observed that the Court, in case titled Director General, All India Radio & Anr vs Casual Labour Employees Association, Radio Kashmir, Srinagar bearing LPAOW no.

03/2019 decided on 24th February, 2022, of which incidentally, I am the author, has laid down a principle that it is not open for the Tribunals or the Writ Courts to confer travel beyond what is expressly provided by law, rule or scheme and the eligibility clause, nor should it confer a jurisdiction upon such forums/ courts/ tribunals to help in stretching the same beyond what is expressly provided by law. While relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court laid down in case titled Anurag Kumar Singh vs State of Uttarakhand (2016)9 SCC 426, this Court has held that courts cannot give any direction contrary to the Statue or Rules made there under in exercise of judicial discretion.

Taking cue from the judgment of the Apex Court Supra, it is held therein that where there is one lawful option, the discretion does not exist as the discretion assumes the freedom to choose among several lawful alternatives.

DB further observed that contention of R A Jan, senior counsel, that a right has accrued to the respondents for claiming regularization on the basis of the recommendations of the Standing Labour Committee is not well founded as the Standing Labour Committee recommendation cannot be a substitute for the Policy in the shape of Rule or law governing such regularization. DB said that the contention having no substance, merits rejection and held that the regularization of services could be recognized under a particular Rule/ Policy of the Government and not otherwise. There is absolutely no scope for two opinions over it. With these observations, DB allowed the petition and set-aside the impugned order and in consequence whereof the OA filed by the respondents is also dismissed. It goes without saying that nothing observed in this judgment shall prevent the petitioners from considering the case of the respondents in terms of the policy presently in operation notified in terms of Circular dated 5th September, 2019, which provides for a mechanism for their permanent absorption in the department. The eligibility criteria, in such, eventuality, shall not form an impediment for the authorities to take a view favorable to the respondents.