L.N. Mittal, Member, J.

1. By filing this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, applicant Anita Gupta has claimed the following relief:-

i) The order Annexure A-4 may kindly be set aside being passed against the order, passed by Honourable High Court where it was clearly directed to consider the services of applicant as regular from the date of initial appointment into the service. And in view of the said judgment the respondents be directed to treat the applicant as regular from the date of her initial appointment that is from 12.04.1989 and not from the date of continuous ad hoc service.

ii) That applicant be granted the financial up-gradation that is scale of senior Lecturer w.e.f. 12-04-1997 and that of Selection Grade from 12.04.2005. After considering the applicant regular from the initial date of appointment dated 12.04.1989.

iii) That as a consequence of grant of relief as mentioned in clause (i) above respondents be directed to re-cast the seniority list placing the applicant at Serial No 1, as the order Annexure A-5 rejecting the objections is illegal.

iv) That the order Annexure A-15 vide which the representation has been rejected without considering the facts and passing the reasoned orders may also be set aside, as the authorities has not considered the regularization of the applicant is against the settled directions issued by the Honourable High Court, vide which the applicant was ordered to be taken as regular from the initial date of appointment. As such the order Annexure A-15, be set aside.

2. Case of the applicant is that she joined service of respondents (Chandigarh Administration) as Lecturer on adhoc basis in Govt. College of Arts, Sector 10, Chandigarh (respondent no. 3) on 12.4.1989 after being selected by duly constituted selection committee. The appointment was till 12.5.1989. She was reappointed as Lecturer on adhoc basis vide appointment letter dated 18.7.1989 for six months w.e.f. 1.8.1989. Her services were extended on 14.2.1990 till 12.5.1990 and again on 30.4.1990 till 31.7.1990. She was further appointed for six months vide letter dated 24.8.1990. Copies of appointment letters have been attached as Annexure A-1 collectively. The applicant filed O.A. No. 151/CH/1991 claiming regularization of her services. Interim status quo was granted therein. The O.A. was decided on 4.3.1991 directing the respondents to allow the applicant to remain on the post without any break till the vacancy is filled up by regular appointee, besides ancillary directions. Respondent were also directed to pay salary and allowances for the period for which the applicant would continue in service and would also be entitled to maternity leave etc. Respondents were thus directed to pay salary to the applicant for the period from 24.8.1990 till 11.9.1990 also. The applicant filed another O.A. No. 558/CH/2000 for regularization. The same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 8.6.2001. The applicant filed CWP No. 10320/CAT/2001 in Honourable High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the said order. The said Civil Writ Petition was decided alongwith bunch of other similar Writ Petitions by Honourable High Court by common judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2). Operative para thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned Tribunal are not sustainable in law. Consequently, the same are set aside. It is held that the appointment of the petitioners, though titled as adhoc, is in fact regular appointment and, therefore, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as regular appointees from the date of their initial appointment. The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.

3. Principal of the College sent letter dated 19.03.2008 ( Annexure A-3) intimating that Purnima Nanda who had also initially joined on 12.4.1989 (as the applicant) be given charge of acting Principal of the College because in view of judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2) of the High Court, Purnima Nanda had become senior most Lecturer. While implementing judgment dated 06.02.2008 (Annexure A-2) of the High Court, respondents passed order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure A-4) regularizing the applicant w.e.f. 11.9.1990 instead of from 12.4.1989 the date of her initial appointment as Lecturer on adhoc basis. Order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure A-4) is thus illegal and without jurisdiction being against judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2) of the High Court. Tentative seniority list was circulated inviting objections. The applicant submitted objections dated 21.8.2009 thereby challenging her seniority at serial no. 5 in the tentative seniority list and praying to be placed at serial no. 1. However, the objections have been dismissed by the respondents vide order dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure A-5). Senior scale was granted to the applicant vide order dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure A-6) w.e.f. 31.10.1996. But later on, vide order dated 23.2.2012 bearing endorsement dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure A-7), Senior scale was amended to be granted to the applicant from 11.9.1998 although she was entitled to it from 11.9.1997, considering the date the applicant to be regularized from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 12.4.1989. The applicant is entitled to selection grade w.e.f. 12.4.2005, but it has been granted to her from 1.1.2006 vide order dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure A-8).

4. The applicant filed O.A. NO. 375/CH/2012 challenging the seniority list as finalized by the respondents by dismissing objections vide order dated 8.11.2010 showing the applicant to be regularized from 11.9.1990 i.e. from the date of her continuous service on adhoc basis and not from 12.4.1989 the date of her initial appointment. Grant of senior scale w.e.f. 11.9.1998 instead of 12.4.1997 was also challenged. However, the said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.8.2013 (Annexure A-9) on the ground that order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure A-4 herein) was not challenged. Applicant filed CWP No. 7291/2015 to assail order dated 30.8.2013 (Annexure A-9). The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Honourable High Court vide order dated 22.4.2015 (Annexure A-13) thereby permitting the applicant to withdraw the said Writ Petition with liberty to approach the administrative authorities and thereafter to have recourse to the alternative remedy as may be available in law. Pursuant to that order, the applicant made representation dated 29.7.2015 (Annexure A-14) claiming the relief as claimed in the instant O.A. However, the respondents, without granting personal hearing to the applicant as prayed for in her representation, rejected the said representation vide non-speaking communication dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure A-15). Hence this O.A.5. In the meanwhile, some lecturers appointed on regular basis filed O.A. NO. 53/CH/2012 challenging the seniority of nine lecturers who were appointed in 1989 on adhoc basis and were deemed to be regular as per judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2) from the date of their initial appointment. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 16.3.2012 holding adhoc appointed lecturers, as subsequently regularized, to be senior to the lecturers appointed subsequently on regular basis directly. Said order of the Tribunal was challenged by filing CWP No. 8989/2013, but it was also dismissed by Honourable High Court vide judgment dated 12.5.2014 (Annexure A-10) holding the private respondents (original appointees on adhoc basis, but regularized subsequently from the date of initial appointment) to be senior to the Writ Petitioners.

6. Sanjeev Soni, Lecturer (placed similarly as the applicant) filed O.A. No. 301/CH/2011 challenging order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure A-4 herein) whereby his services were regularized w.e.f. 19.2.1991 instead of 8.1.1990 the date of his initial appointment on adhoc basis. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.4.2012 (Annexure A-11) holding the said applicant to be regularized w.e.f. 8.1.1990. Writ Petition No. 11615/2013 filed by respondents against the said order was dismissed by Honourable High Court vide judgment dated 12.1.2015 (Annexure A-12).

7. Main ground of attack by the applicant against the action of the respondents is based on judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2) of Honourable High Court whereby the applicant and others were ordered to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment. Initial appointment of the applicant as Lecturer on adhoc basis was w.e.f 12.4.1989 vide appointment letter dated 11.4.1989. Consequently, as per judgment (Annexure A-2), she is deemed to be regular from 12.4.1989 and is entitled to all consequential benefits of seniority, senior scale and selection grade etc. Order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure A-4) being contrary to judgment (Annexure A-2) is illegal and without jurisdiction. Other Lecturers appointed on adhoc basis have been considered regular from the date of their initial appointment.

8. Respondents no. 2 & 3 in their written statement pleaded that O.A. to challenge order dated 14.01.2009 (Annexure A-4) is barred by delay and limitation. On merits, it has been pleaded that the applicant has been correctly regularized w.e.f. 11.9.1990 being the date of her continuous appointment on adhoc basis. Prior to it, her appointment was not continuous and there were breaks and fresh appointment orders were issued each time. Case of Sanjeev Soni is distinguishable because he was relieved on 7.1.1991 as per terms and condition of his adhoc appointment. He along with others filed O.A. NO. 13/CH/1991 wherein the Tribunal vide interim order dated 8.1.1991 stayed termination of their services. However, Sanjeev Soni stood already relieved on 7.1.1991. He was again issued appointment letter dated 18.2.1991 and he joined duty on 19.2.1991. Vide order dated 1.4.1991, Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) without pay was granted to him for the intervening period from 9.1.1991 to 18.2.1991. However, there remained break of one day i.e. 8.1.1991 which could not be explained by the respondents when O.A. No. 301/CH/2011 filed by Sanjeev Soni was heard. Consequently the said O.A. was allowed vide order dated 20.4.2012 (Annexure A-11) and Sanjeev Soni was granted regularization w.e.f. 8.1.1990 in terms of judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2).

9. No written statement was filed by respondent no. 1- UOI.

10. Applicant filed replication wherein she controverted the stand of the respondents and reiterated her own version.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

12. Counsel for the applicant emphatically relied on judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2) of Honourable High Court to contend that the applicant is entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 12.4.1989 the date of her initial appointment. It was also submitted that order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure A-4) holding Sanjeev Soni to be regularized from 19.2.1991 instead of from 8.1.1990 the date of his initial appointment was successfully challenged by Sanjeev Soni by filing O.A. NO. 301/CH/2011 which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.4.2012 (Annexure A-11), upheld by Honourable High Court vide judgment dated 12.1.2015 (Annexure A-12), granting said Sanjeev Soni regularization of his services w.e.f. 8.1.1990 instead of from 19.2.1991. It was submitted that the applicant is also entitled to similar relief of regularization of her service w.e.f. 12.4.1989 being the date of her initial appointment.

13. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that vide appointment letters dated 11.4.1989 and 18.7.1989, the applicant was appointed on adhoc basis against the vacancy caused due to suspension of the existing Lecturer and it was only vide order dated 24.4.1990 that she was appointed on adhoc basis against the regular vacancy and consequently her services have been correctly regularized w.e.f 11.9.1990 being the date of her continuous service. It was pointed out that earlier there were breaks in her service from 13.5.1989 to 31.7.1989 and from 1.8.1990 to 24.8.1990/11.9.1990. It was thus submitted that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of Sanjeev Soni.

14. We have carefully considered the matter. Before proceeding further, it has to be noticed that the applicant was appointed on adhoc basis vide order dated 24.8.1990 and she is claiming her continuous service since that date. But respondents have treated her continuous service since 11.9.1990. This confusion for the period from 24.8.1990 till 10.9.1990 has not been cleared by the parties. However, appointment letter dated 24.8.1990 is on record and it shows that the applicant is in continuous service since 24.8.1990

15. As regards plea of limitation raised by the respondents in the written statement, the same cannot be accepted because the applicant is continuously in litigation. The applicant earlier field O.A. No. 375/CH/2012 which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.8.2013 (Annexure A-9). CWP No. 7291 of 2015 filed against the said order was disposed of by Honourable High Court vide order dated 22.4.2015 (Annexure A-13) permitting her to approach the administrative authorities and thereafter to have recourse to the alternative remedy. Thereupon the applicant made representation dated 29.7.2015 (Annexure A-14) which has been rejected by the respondents by non-speaking order dated 3.12.2015 (Annexure A-15). Thereafter the applicant field instant O.A. on 18.1.2016 i.e. within limitation period. Consequently the O.A. cannot be said to be barred by limitation.

16. On merits, the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed by her in view of judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2) of the Honourable High Court passed in previous round of litigation between the parties. Relief granted in the said judgment has been extracted in earlier part of this order. The said operative part of judgment (Annexure A-2) directed the respondents to treat the petitioners (including the applicant) as regular appointees from the date of their initial appointment. Thus, the applicant had to be treated as regular appointee from the date of her initial appointment which admittedly was 12.4.1989. Consequently, she is entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 12.4.1989 being date of her initial appointment. Stand of the respondents to the contrary is barred by res judicata. This issue already stands determined and clinched in favour of the applicant vide judgment (Annexure A-2) and, therefore, cannot be re-agitated by the respondents in the instant O.A.

17. In the aforesaid context, it is significant to notice that respondents no. 3 in letter dated 19.3.2008 (Annexure A-3) mentioned the date of joining of the applicant as 12.4.1989. Similarly, in information dated 19.2.2009 (part of Annexure A-3) supplied under the Right to Information Act also, date of joining of the applicant has been mentioned as 12.4.1989.

18. The applicant is also entitled to the relief on the same analogy as granted to Sanjeev Soni. There was also break in his service from 8.1.1991 to 18.2.1991 i.e. for six weeks. However, he was held to be regularized w.e.f. 8.1.1990 the date of his initial appointment and not w.e.f. 19.2.1991 as had been ordered by the respondents vide order dated 14.01.2009 (Annexure A-4). O.A. filed by Sanjeev Soni was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.4.2012 (Annexure A-11) and it was upheld by Honourable High Court vide judgment dated 12.1.2015 (Annexure A-12). In judgment (Annexure A-12), Honourable High Court also observed that date of regularization of service of Sanjeev Soni w.e.f. 8.1.1990 cannot possibly be challenged as such it has already been upheld by this Court in some other case i.e. vide judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2). On the same analogy, the date of regularization of service of the applicant w.e.f. 12.4.1989 being the date of her initial appointment cannot be challenged as such by the respondents as it has already been decided by Honourable High Court in earlier round of litigation vide judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2). The respondents cannot now raise plea of break in service of the applicant and cannot order regularization of her services only w.e.f. her continuous service i.e. since 24.8.1990/11.9.1990. Any such plea could have been taken in earlier round of litigation which stands concluded vide judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2) by Honourable High Court. The said judgment has finally determined that the applicant is entitled to be treated as regular appointee from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 12.4.1989. Even otherwise, breaks in her service were apparently due to summer vacations. In this context, reference may be made to appointment letter dated 18.7.1989 (at pages 20-21 of the paper book being part of Annexure A-1 collectively) whereby the applicant was appointed as Lecturer on adhoc basis w.e.f. 1.8.1989 and not with immediate effect. Thus the break was due to vacations in the College. Again there was notional break w.e.f. 1.8.1990 to 23.8.1990 when she was again appointed vide appointment letter dated 24.8.1990. Prior to it, she had continuous service of one year since 1.8.1989 till 31.7.1990. Apparently notional break was given to her from 1.8.1990 to 23.8.1990 just to obstruct her claim to claim regularization of her service. It is thus apparent that so-called breaks in adhoc service of the applicant have to be ignored and she has to be treated as regular w.e.f. the date of her initial appointment i.e. 12.4.1989, particularly so in view of judgment dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure A-2) of Honourable High Court. The breaks period can be treated as EOL of the applicant as was done in the case of Sanjeev Soni.

19. It may be mentioned that representation dated 29.7.2015 (Annexure A-14) of the applicant made by her pursuant to order dated 22.4.2015 (Annexure A-13) of the High Court has been rejected summarily by non-speaking order dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure A-15) simply mentioning that the administration had considered her representation and filed. The said order is, therefore, also bad being non-speaking, besides being contrary to judgment (Annexure A-2). Similarly, order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure A-4) is also bad being contrary to judgment (Annexure A-2).

20. Resultantly, the instant O.A. is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure A-4) and impugned order dated 3.12.2015 (Annexure A-15) are set aside. Respondents are directed to treat the applicant as regular from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 12.4.1989. She is held entitled to all consequential benefits of senior scale and selection grade and seniority etc. Order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure A-5) rejecting objections of the applicant regarding seniority is also consequently quashed. All consequential benefits, including seniority and financial benefits, be granted to the applicant. Necessary exercise be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.