Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Randhir Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 9 September, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.3486/2012
With
OA No. 2274/2012
With
OA. 1589/2013
New Delhi, this the 9th day of September, 2016
Hon'ble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)
Hon'ble Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal, Member (J)
OA No.3486/12
Randhir Singh S/o Sh. Pratap Singh
Aged about 37 years
Physical Education Teacher
GLNS, Delhi Gate, Delhi
And R/o A-5/B-19 Flats
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063 .... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.K.K. Mishra, proxy for Mr. S.M.Garg)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Government Secretariat
Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi
2. Ministry of Social Welfare/
Women & Child Development
Govt.of NCT of Delhi
GNLS Building
Delhi Gate, New Delhi-11002
Through its Secretary
3. Director
The Department of Social Welfare
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
GNLS Building, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-11002 ..... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Anmol Pandita, proxy for Mr. Vijay Pandita)
OA No.2774/2012
Murli Singh S/o Sh. Mukhtyar Singh
Aged about 42years
R. NO. 347A Gali No. 2 (Patli Gali)
Chandar Lok, Delhi-93
And 18 others .... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr.K.K. Mishra, proxy for Mr. S.M.Garg)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Government Secretariat
Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi
2. Ministry of Social Welfare/
Women & Child Development
Govt.of NCT of Delhi
GNLS Building
Delhi Gate, New Delhi-11002
Through its Secretary
3. Director
The Department of Social Welfare
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
GNLS Building, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-11002 ..... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Anmol Pandita, proxy for Mr. Vijay Pandita)
OA No.1589/2013
Smt. Siya Dulari, Aged about 38 years
Craft Instructor
At SMRC, Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
And Permanent R/o Village Jarpur,
Post Samho, Distt.Etawah (UP) .... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.K.K. Mishra, proxy for Mr. S.M.Garg)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Government Secretariat
Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi
2. Ministry of Social Welfare/
Women & Child Development
Govt.of NCT of Delhi
GNLS Building
Delhi Gate, New Delhi-11002
Through its Secretary
3. Director
The Department of Social Welfare
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
GNLS Building, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-11002 ..... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Anmol Pandita, proxy for Mr. Vijay Pandita)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A) In the first call, a request was made by proxy counsel that arguing counsel for the applicant is not able to appear today and the matter may adjourned. We cannot postpone the matter to any further as it is an old matter therefore it is being disposed of in accordance with provisions of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The applicant had been appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on contractual basis in the year 2010 w.e.f.22.02.2010 (F/N) initially for a period of six months making it clear that the contractual engagement is subject to the following terms and conditions:
(i) The contractual engagement is only for six months from the date of your joining this department or till a regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The department reserves the right to cancel the contractual engagement anytime during the six month period without any advance notice and
(iii) They would be paid a consolidated remuneration of Rs.
15,000/- per month as notified in the initial order of appointment.
3. The applicants have filed the OA with the following prayer:-
(a) call for the records of the case.
(b) call for an order directing respondents to consider the applicant for absorption on regular basis in the post of Physical Education Teacher under respondent no.3;
(c) pass an order directing Respondent No.3 to pay salary to the applicant for the whole of the academic session including holidays;
(d) pass such further or other orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the department, while appointing the applicant initially, have followed the regular selection process and the applicant was duly selected for the post of PET by a duly constituted selection committee against the available vacancy in the sanctioned post, following the procedure prescribed in RRs. His selection was, therefore, for regular appointment for all practical purposes. He is argued that the applicant having no bargaining power was, therefore, constraint to accept the said employment as he was made to understand that his services would be regularised in the course of time. It is, therefore, claimed that initial appointment of the applicant was neither illegal nor a back door entry and could at the most be called an irregular appointment for the only reason that his selection was not by DSSSB. This has, therefore, given rise to the legitimate expectation of the applicant that his services would be regularised as per the assurance given at the time of appointment.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents' argument is that regularisation /absorption on regular basis cannot be granted in view of Constitutional Bench's judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Others reported in 2006 Vol.4 SCC page 1, wherein it has been held that the service of contract / adhoc employees cannot be regularised dehors the RRs. He has also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) In case of Dr. Chanchal Goyal Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 Vol.3 SSC page 485
(ii) In case of J & K Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Narender Mohan 1994 [1] SLR 246 (SC) and Union of India Vs. Harish Bal Krishnan Mahajan 1996[1] SLR 669, held that directions issued by the Tribunal to regularise the services in consultation with Public Service Commission is illegal.
(iii) State of M.P. Vs. Dharam Bir 1998 [6] SSC 165, held that a person has to fulfil the qualification prescribed by RRs even though he might be working on the same post on adhoc/temporary basis for a long time. Statutory provisions are to be considered first by the Courts.
(iv) State of Punjab Vs. Surender Singh 1997 JT [4] SC 82, held that an ad-hoc employee has no right tothe post as such until they are duly selected and appointed. In the case of Mr. Sodagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 [2] SSC 554, held that an ad-hoc employee has no right to continue unless a regular appointment made and court has no powers to relax the RRs.
(v) In case of Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar Vs. Maharastra reported in JT 1994 95) SC 378,
(vi) State of H.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma & Ors.
1996 (7) SSC 562
(vii) In case of Director Institute of Management Development UP Vs. Smt. Srivastava 1993 (1) S.L.J. 124 (SC).
(viii) In case of UPSC Vs. Girish Jyanit Lal Vaghela, 2006 Vol.2 SCC page 482.
(ix) In case of Sh. Shankar Nath Tiwari & Others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board in CWP No.7217/2000.
6. He has further relief upon case of Dr. Divpreet Sahni & Others Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi being OA No.988/2001 with connected OA Nos. 3371, 3374,1129 of 2001 and OA No.13/2002 decided on 19.09.2002. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that appointment letter itself made it clear that contractual engagement does not confer any right to claim regular appointment in the department.
7. We have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made on behalf of the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and also considered the cited judgments. The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), has settled the law in regard to regularization. The apex Court has taken a view that the service of contract / adhoc employees cannot be regularised dehors the RRs. This has been reiterated time and again in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents quoted above. Therefore, prayer of the applicants for regularisation cannot be allowed. As regards prayer 8(c), i.e. payment of salary for the whole academic year including the holidays also cannot be entertained as explained by the respondents in their reply that such contractual employees are hired when the academic session is on and not when the school is closed.
8. In view of the clear legal position, we find no merits in these OAs and they are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal) (P.K. Basu)
Member (J) Member A)
/mk /