Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Helan Peter, Staff Nurse, Guru Teg ... vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi ... on 2 April, 2007
ORDER Neena Ranjan, Member (A)
1. None appeared for the applicant in spite of repeated calls. We proceeded to hear the learned Counsel for the respondents on merit in view of Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
2. The applicant was appointed as Staff Nurse on contract basis for 89 days at a consolidated salary of Rs. 5800/- per month w.e.f. 7.9.1998. After completion of 89 days, he was given 3 days break and then again appointed in the same capacity. After May 2000, there was no break in the services of the applicant and she remained in continuous service. However, the applicant has not been given full salary, though entitled to the same, after completion of one year of continuous service, from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002. A notification issued by Government of NCT of Delhi entitles her to equal pay for equal work and salary/other allowances as admissible to regular staff.
3 On 20.9.2005 applicant made an unsuccessful representation to the respondents praying therein for consideration of her case for regularization as well as for payment of full salary. Hence in this OA she has prayed for the following reliefs:
direct the respondents to pay entire emoluments to the applicant from 2.1.2002 onward keeping in view the entitlement for promotion vide Notification dated 12.9.2002 and the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 1493 of 2003;
direct the respondents to give age relaxation so that the applicant may appear in the examination for regularization of her job;
direct the respondents to pay in future the full benefits including the salary as applicable to regular employees.
4. In view of the above it is prayed that the OA be allowed and the relief granted to some other persons vide CWP No. 4966 of 1999 with regard to age relaxation may also be granted to her.
5. In the counter reply, the respondents have submitted that the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted in view of many judgments of the Apex Court. One of them is in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi wherein it has been held that services of contract/ad hoc/daily wages cannot be regularized. Further, in the case of Dr. Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan 2003 Vol.3 page 485 regularisation has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for similarly situated employees. In this case it is clear that the applicant was appointed on a contract basis for a period of 89 days de hors the rules and, therefore, cannot seek an appointment by back door entry since no regular selection process has been gone through.
5. To further bolster their stand respondents have relied upon Orissa University of Agriculture & Technolgoy v. Manoj K. Mohnaty 2003 (1) SC Service Law Judgment page 363; Utkal University and Anr. v. Jyotiramyee Nayak and Ors. 2003 (2) SC Service Law Judgment page 249 and some other cases to contend that applicant is not entitled to get the regular pay scales and hence have prayed that the OA be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents and gone through the judgments cited by the parties.
7. The applicant's case is fully covered by the decision given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 4966 of 1999 in the case of Ms. Deepika S. Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. wherein also the applicant was granted age relaxation for appearing in the examination to be held by DSSSB for recruitment of Staff Nurse. The present applicant is similarly situated since she is a nurse in the hospital under Government of NCT of Delhi. Accordingly, the present OA is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to extend the same benefit to the present applicant also as given by the Delhi High Court in CWP 4966 of 1999 in respect of age relaxation and similar benefits extended to applicant of that CWP.
9. OA is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.