Under the NIRD Service Bye-laws, does regularisation of service pursuant to an Office Order take effect from the date of the order or relate back to the date of initial appointment, where that condition was never challenged?

Paragraph 5In the interregnum, NIRD raised a challenge to the adjudication undertaken by the CAT in the case of Mr. S.S.P. Sharma. This Court by its judgment dated 28.02.2023 in National Institute of Rural Development Vs. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and Others[^8] held, after considering Bye-law 52 as well as the Rules of 2011, that the regularisation of services of Mr. S.S.P. Sharma pursuant to the order of regularisation dated 04.05.2012 would operate from the date of that order and would not relate back to the date of his initial appointment as was held by the CAT and affirmed by the High Court. This was for the reason that it was specifically stated in the order of regularisation dated 04.05.2012 that it would take effect from the date of issuance of the order, which condition had not been challenged by Mr. S.S.P. Sharma. Accordingly, the orders passed by the CAT and the High Court were set aside and it was held that Mr. S.S.P. Sharma was entitled to benefits under the CPF Scheme.

Paragraph 7We have heard Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned Senior Advocate for the first respondent and Ms. Vishakha, learned counsel for the second respondent. While the endeavour on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner was to distinguish the decision of this Court in S.S.P. Sharma (supra), the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was similarly situated as Mr. S.S.P. Sharma and, hence, the adjudication by this Court in S.S.P. Sharma (supra) was applicable on all fours to the case of petitioner. Having given due consideration to the respective submissions and having gone through the relevant material on record, we are of the considered view that the adjudication undertaken in S.S.P. Sharma (supra) by this Court would also apply to the case of petitioner. We do not intend to reproduce all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties as the petitioner's case is based on Office Order No.98 dated 04.05.2012 by which the services of Academic Staff working on contractual basis were regularised. By the said Office Order, the services of the petitioner as Professor on contractual basis were regularised subject to various terms and conditions, which included the order of regularisation taking effect from the date of the said order as well as services being continued to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme. As found by this Court in S.S.P. Sharma (supra), the terms and conditions of regularisation stipulated in the Office Order dated 04.05.2012 were not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time, as also in the case of Mr. S.S.P. Sharma. Having accepted the terms and conditions for regularisation of services on the post of Professor and the grievance in this regard having been raised post-retirement after accepting benefits under the CPF Scheme, the petitioner was rightly non-suited by the High Court. This Court in S.S.P. Sharma (supra) considered in detail the effect of the Rules of 2011, especially Rule 6 thereof as well as Bye-law 52 Clause(a) along with Bye-laws 48 and 49 thereof. We are in complete agreement with what has been held by this Court in S.S.P. Sharma (supra) and we do not find any reason, whatsoever, to re-open the aforesaid issue at the instance of the petitioner.