Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Vikas Kumar Shukla vs Union Of India & Others Through on 12 October, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-487/2012
Reserved on : 08.10.2012.
Pronounced on :12.10.2012.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member (A)
Sh. Vikas Kumar Shukla,
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Shukla,
R/o C-74, Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi-62. . Applicant
(through Sh. A.K. Bhakt, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India & Others through
the Secretary,
Department of Information,
Technology (Govt. of India),
6, CGO Complex,
New Delhi-3.
2. Director General,
National Informatics Centre (NIC),
Department of Information Technology
(Govt. of India)
3, CGO Complex, New Delhi-3.
3. Director & HOD (NIC),
Department of Information,
Technology (Govt. of India),
6, CGO Complex, New Delhi-3. . Respondents
(through Sh. M.M. Sudan, Advocate)
O R D E R
Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member (A) The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to the respondents to re-employ him on the post of staff vehicle driver.
2. The relevant facts as mentioned by the applicant in this O.A. are that he had applied for the post of Driver to the respondents and he was appointed on trial basis w.e.f. 31.12.2007. He approached the Community Information Center, Department of Information Electronic Niketan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and after his trial was given car keys of Car No. DL 3CB 4821 and its log book and was asked to take charge as a car driver. He joined his duties w.e.f. 03.01.2008. The respondents issued him an appointment letter dated 14.01.2008 (Annexure A-3) and issued him identity card No. 212 as well as a mobile connection. After one month, although he was appointed as a driver by the government, he was paid his salary by cheque by the agency who was a contract service provider. He complained about this arrangement to respondent No.3 who assured him that he will be paid directly by the department from the next month. Finally, through the means of forged resignation letter dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure A-4) his services were terminated.
2.1 He has also filed MA-400/2012 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present O.A. The grounds taken by him are that he had been moving various authorities with his appeal for appointment as a car driver and finally he contacted Sh. Sanjay Kumar an advocate of Delhi High Court, who file OA vide Diary No. 124 dated 11.01.2010 but failed to pursue the same while continuously assuring him of necessary steps being taken. Therefore, the delay, which was not intentional and arose out of a genuine misunderstanding created by his advocate may be condoned.
3. The respondents during the course of hearing did not press the point of delay though they had done so in their counter reply. Their basic submission was that the said applicant was never appointed by the respondents. The facts of the case are that the services of certain persons were required under a temporary project called Community Information Centre (CIC) project which was set up with the purpose of opening 457 Information Centres in the North-East States. A staff car was required at the project level at Delhi for which the services of the applicant were hired through Mass Placement Consultancy Services (S.K. Group) purely on contractual basis. Even the applicant has admitted that he has received his salary through the said consultancy.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The particular reference as relied upon by the applicant is said to be an appointment letter of the applicant (Annexure A-3). It is seen that the same is a communication made by respondent No. 3 to DDG, NIC (respondent No.2). This annexure being a copy of letter No. 1(1)/2008/JSS/CIC dated 14.01.2008, is actually in the nature of an internal communication in which it is stated by respondent No.3 that the applicant may be appointed as a driver. It in no way can be said to be an appointment letter. The applicant has failed to establish in any way that he had ever been engaged by the respondents in any capacity.
6. In view of the factual position stated above, we hold that the applicant although has filed this O.A. after considerable delay has also failed to prove his case on merits. Hence, the present O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(Jayati Chandra) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /vinita/