Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Jasmer Singh S/O Sh. Bhagat Singh vs Union Territory on 1 April, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No.957-CH-2012 Pronounced on : 01.04.2013 Reserved on : 21.03.2013. CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A) 1.Jasmer Singh S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh, working as Workshop Instructor (Carpentry Shop), 2.Ansar Khan S/o Sh. Izhar Khan, working as Workshop Instructor (Turning Shop). 3.Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh, working as Workshop Instructor (Smithy/Forging Shop). 4.Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Niranjan Singh, working as Workshop Instructor (Machine Shop). 5.Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, working as Workshop Instructor (Electrical Shop). 6.Hardeep Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Sagar, working as Workshop Instructor (Foundary Shop). All working in Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Diploma Wing, Sector 26, Chandigarh. . Applicant Versus 1. Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Administrator 2. Secretary, Technical Education, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sector 9, Chandigarh. 3. Director, Technical Education, U.T. Chandigarh. 4. Head of Diploma Wing, Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Chandigarh. Respondents Present : R.K. Sharma, counsel for applicant. Mr. Vivek Arora, Counsel for respondents. O R D E R (oral)
JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, JM
1.The O.A. filed by the applicant for the grant of various facets of the reliefs initially came to be disposed of on 18.12.2012 in the light of view taken in judgment dated 23.3.2011 in OA No.33-CH of 2011 in the case of Vandana Jain & Others vs. Union of India and others.
2.It was thereafter that the applicants filed a review plea on the premise that it is only a part of the relief claimed by them which was covered by the view in Vandana Jains case (supra) and that the other part of the relief claimed has not been adjudicated.
3.It was in the light of that factual scenario, which emerged during the course of hearing, that we allowed the review plea and ordered listing of the matter for a re-hearing.
4.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5.A glance at the comparative information qua the relief applied for in the present O.A. and the relief granted in Vandana Jains case (supra) would ensure clarity of understanding :
Relief claimed herein Relief claimed in Vandana Jains case.
i) Directions may be issued to the respondents not to put break in the appointment of the applicants on completion of every semester and not to replace the applicants by contractual appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on regular basis or till the need is there and to pay salary for vacations.
ii) Declaration may also be issued to the effect that the conditions of the appointment of the applicants on fixed term and fixed salary are illegal and unconstitutional and are liable to be quashed to the extent these restrict the period of their appointment one semester and re-engage them after putting break, and that they are entitled to continue in service till the posts are filled in on regular basis / till need is there and they are entitled to minimum of the pay scale plus D.A. as revised from time to time, at par with regular staff.
iii) Respondents be directed to pay the applicants minimum of the pay scale of the post of Workshop Instructor in the pay band of Rs.10300-34800 + G.P. Rs.3600/- plus dearness allowances as revised from time to time with effect from their initial date of appointment minus the consolidated salary already paid to the including for the period of artificial break.
iv) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted in favour of the applicants.
I) Directions may be issued to the respondents not to replace the applicants by contractual appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on regular basis or till the need is there and to pay salary for vacations.
II) Directions may also be issued to the respondents to prepare a combined seniority list of contractual appointees subject wise & to follow the principle of first come last go in case of necessity and to follow other direction issued by this Honble Tribunal in OA No.126/CH/2002 titled as Krishan Kumar and others versus union territory Chandigarh and others decided on 02.12.2002 and in OA 429/CH/2003 titled as Miss. Sonika Kohli and others versus Union of India and others decided on 27.08.2003 (Annexure A-6 & A-7 respectively).
III) Declaration may also be issued to the effect that the conditions of the appointment of the applicants on fixed term and no salary for vacations are illegal and unconstitutional and are liable to be quashed to that extent and that they are entitled to continue in service till the posts are filled in on regular basis/ till need is there and they are entitled to salary for vacation period including maternity leave for female appointments wherever applicable.
6.In so far as the relief noticed at Item No. (i) is concerned, it would be available to the applicants in the light of the view obtained by us in Vandana Jains case (supra). That view restrained the replacement of a contractual employee (applicants therein) by appointees of contractual hue till the appointees of the regular character came in.
7.The applicants herein would also be entitled to the grant of salary for the vacation period on the lines of the view obtained by us in Vandana Jains case (supra). That view was in respectful accord with the view of a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Anil Kumar & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others.
8.Likewise, our view therein invalidating the denial of salary to the contractual employees for the vacation period was in accord with the view obtained by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Krishan Kumar Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh : 2004 (3) (CAT) 229 which (view) came to be affirmed (though in another matter) by the Honble Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration through Joint Secretary Education Vs. Meenakshi Walia & Another (Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15478/1999 in the judgment and order dated 20.8.1999 in WP 11669/99 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. That view by the Honble Apex Court was a reiteration of its earlier view in Rattan Lal & Others Vs. State of Haryana : AIR 1987 SC 478.
9.In so far as the quashment of the fixture of term of appointment for one semester was concerned, it too is covered by the view obtained by us in Vandana Jains case.
10.However, the relief applied for qua their entitlement of the minimum of the pay scales + D.A. as revised from time to time at par with regular staff is concerned, it is not covered by the judgment in Vandana Jains case. That view we had obtained in O.A. 905/CH/2011 titled Parul Aggarwal & Others vs. U.O.I. & Others. In the larger interest, the applicants herein too shall be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale plus DA, as revised from time to time.
11.On point of fact, we may notice that it is only the direction qua the preparation of the subject-wise seniority list of contractual employees which has been stayed by the High Court in judicial review jurisdiction filed against the judgments in Vandana Jains case; while neither party has brought to our notice that orders in Parul Aggarwal (supra) have been stayed by High Court in judicial review challenge or by the Honble Ape Court in an SLP.
12.Disposed of accordingly.
(JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER (J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 01.04.2013 HC*