Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Ashu vs Union Of India on 28 May, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi.
1. OA-3394/2013 5. OA-3501/2013 9. OA-3692/2013 MA-2578/2013 MA-2671/2013
2. OA-3395/2013 6. OA-3503/2013 10. OA-3891/2013 MA-2577/2013 MA-2954/2013
3. OA-3396/2013 7. OA-3545/2013 MA-2576/2013 MA-2702/2013 MA-3239/2013
4. OA-3499/2013 8. OA-3691/2013 MA-2672/2013 Reserved on : 22.05.2014.
Pronounced on :28.05.2014.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) OA-3394/2013, MA-2578/2013
1. Smt. Ashu, W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar, 706, VSNL Apartments, Sector-62, Noida.
2. Sh. Santosh Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram sabere, C-101, IInd Floor, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad-201011.
3. Sh. Manoj Purohit, S/o Sh. Anand Purohit, C-42, Street No.13, Shastri Garden, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi-91.
4. Sh. Vineet Kumar Birla, S/o Sh. Sanatan Birla, Kamal Residency, Flat No. SF-1, Plot No. A-2, Sector-5, Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad, UP.
5. Sh. Brahmanandha Prabhu R, S/o Sh. Ramasamy M, L-32, Sector-11, Noida-201301. . Applicants OA-3395/2013, MA-2577/2013
1. Ms. Priyanka Dutta, W/o Mr. Devipad Tripathy, A419 MEA Apartment, Sector-62, Noida, UP.
2. Sh. Uttam Kumar, S/o Sh. S.P. Kureel, C-12, Pocket-VI, Kendriya Vihar, Sector-82, Noida, UP.
3. Sh. Lalit Kumar S/o Sh. Shri Ram, 1063, D 14, Khajuri Colony, Delhi-94.
4. Sh. Manish Kumar Verma, S/o Sh. Karan Singh, V-220, Sector-12, Noida, UP. . Applicants OA-3396/2013, MA-2576/2013
1. Sh. Partha P. Chattaraj, S/o Sh. Ram Chandra Chattaraj, F-3, Plot No. 174, Vaishali Sector-6, Ghaziabad(UP).
2. Sh. Alok Bharti, S/o Sh. Narendra Dutt Tyagi, B-107, Kalyani Apartment, Sector-6, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, UP.
3. Sh. Umesh Sharma, S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma, B-191, Rail Nagar Apartment, Sector-50, Noida.
4. Sh. Abhishek Verma, S/o Sh. Rajesh Verma, 39, Ashiana Apartment, Delhi-34.
5. Ms. Nishtha Jaiswal, W/o Sh. Ashutosh Asthana, Flat No. M10C, Plot No.41, Shalimar Garden, Ext.-1, Shaihabad, Ghaziabad.
6. Sh. Vikas Bansal, S/o S. Satish Chand Bansal, 620, Sector-14A, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, UP.
7. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Rajendra Singh, 167 GF, Gyan Khand-3, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, (UP).
8. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Prem Pal Singh, C-220, Gaur Global Village, Crossing Republik, ND-24, Ghaziabad.
9. Sh. Tejaswin Mohanty, S/o Sh. Suprava Mohanty, B-416, Gaur Global Village, Crossing Republik, NH-24, Ghaziabad.
10. Sh. Sanjay Ojha, S/o late Sh. R.K. Ojha, 107, Second Floor, Sector-13, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad (UP). . Applicants OA-3499/2013, MA-2672/2013
1. Sh. Jignesh Jayendra Modi, S/o Sh. Jayendra Modi, Flat No. 80, Second Floor, Rail Vihar, Sector-33, Noida.
2. Sh. Udai Singh, S/o late Sh. G.S. Singh, House No. 988, Niti Khand-I, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201010.
3. Sh. Ashutosh Pandey, S/o Sh. S.C. Pandey, C-360, OMICRON-2, Greater Noida-201308.(UP).
4. Sh. Balasubramaniam M, S/o Sh. D. Munuswamy, B-855, GD Coloney, Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi-96.
5. Sh. Rabindra Nath, S/o Sh. Nanku Mahto, B-856, G.D. Colony, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, Delhi-96.
6. Smt. Kanti Singh, w/o Sh. Rajesh Singh, B-30, C-DAC Academic Block, Girls Hostel, Sector-62, Noida-201 307.
7. Smt. Amrita Wadhawan, W/o Sh. Rajiv Wadhawan, A-223, Gaur Green Avenue, Abhay Khand-II, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad(UP). . Applicants OA-3501/2013, MA-2671/2013
1. Sh. Chinmay Garg, S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Agrawal, A-804, Amba G. Residency, Ahinsa Khand-2, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad.
2. Smt. Pragya Sharma, W/o Sh. Chakit Sharma, 108, Sundaramkhand, Sector-19, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad-201012.
3. Sh. Anshu Jain, S/o Sh. Subhash Jain, 22-C Mohalla, Near Hanuman Mandir, Hodal, Palwal, Haryana-121106.
4. Sh. Amit Kumar Ateria, S/o Sh. Dayaram Singh, Prabhat Nagar, Hastinapur, Meerut, UP-250404.
5. Sh. Abhay Pal Chauhan, S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Chauhan, D-506/3, Street No. 03, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-93.
6. Sh. Gaurav Gotra, S/o Sh. K.C. Gotra, 158/4, Sarpanch Colony, Mandawli, Delhi-92.
7. Sh. Nitin Kumar Varshney, S/o Sh. Pramod Kumar Varshney, C-2/3, Rail Vihar, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP.
8. Sh. Ashish Kumar, S/o Sh. Rampal Upadhyay, H-175, Sector-23, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad.
9. Sh. Ashwini Mishra, S/o Sh. V.K. Mishra, Vill. And Post-Janikhurd, Meerut, UP, Pin-250501. . Applicants OA-3503/2013 Smt. Shalu Gupta, W/o Sh. Manish Gupta, A-303, Swagatham Apartments, Sector-62, Noida, UP. . Applicant OA-3545/2013, MA-2702/2013
1. Ms. Payal Abhichandani, D/o Sh. Ramesh Abhichandani, Flat No. 32, Pocket B/10, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi-85.
2. Sh. Hem Raj Balwaria, S/o Sh. Manohar Lal Balwaria, F-763/12, Rajnagar-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-77.
3. Sh. Jitender Kumar, S/o Sh. Y.K. Yogi, H.No. 561, Sector-3, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, (UP). . Applicants OA-3691/2013 Smt. Shikha Gupta, W/o late Sh. Rajeev Gupta, 335, Overseas Tower, C-58/21, Sector-62, Noida-201307. . Applicant OA-3692/2013 Smt. Astha Rai, W/o Sh. Abhijeet Shivhare, B-9, 74-C, Udaigiri Apartments, Sector-34, Noida. . Applicant OA-3891/2013, MA-2954/2013
1. Sh. Partha P. Chattaraj, S/o Sh. Ram Chandra Chattaraj, F-3, Plot No.174, Vaishali Sector-6, Ghaziabad, UP.
2. Sh. Alok Bharti, S/o Sh. Narendra Dutt Tyagi, B-107, Kalyani Apartment Sector-6, Vasundhra Ghaziabad,(UP).
3. Sh. Umesh Sharma, S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma, B-191, Rail Nagar Apartment, Sector-50, Noida.
4. Sh. Abhishek Verma, S/o Sh. Rajesh Verma, 39, Ashiana Apartment, Delhi-34.
5. Smt. Nishtha Jaiswal, W/o Sh. Ashutosh Asthana, Flat No. N10C, Plot No.41, Shamilmar Garden, Ext.1, Shaihabad, Ghaziabad.
6. Sh. Vikas Bansal, S/o Sh. Satish Chand Bansal, 620, Sector-14A, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad(UP).
7. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Rajendra Singh, 167 GF, Gyan Khand-3, Indirapuram Ghaziabad (UP).
8. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Prem Pal Singh, C-220, Gaur Global Village, Crossing Republick, NH-24, Ghaziabad.
9. Sh. Tejaswin Mohanty, S/o Sh. Suprava Mohanty, B-416, Gaur Global Village, Crossing Republic, NH-24, Ghaziabad.
10. Sh. Sanjay Ojha, S/o late Sh. R.K. Ojha, 107, Second Floor, Sector-13, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad(UP). .. Applicants Versus
1. Union of India (Represented by Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, New Delhi.
2. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), represented by its Registrar, University of Pune Campus, Ganeshkhind, Pune-411 007.
3. Executive Director, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), Anusandhan Bhavan, C-56/1, Institutional Area, Sector-62, Noida-201 307(UP). . Respondents in all Cases Present : Sh. A. Raghunath, counsel for applicants in all the OAs.
Sh. Amit Anand, counsel for respondents in all the OAs.
O R D E R Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) All these O.As are identical and hence are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of OA-3396/2013 are being discussed. This has been filed seeking the following relief:-
(i) Call for records leading to Office Memorandum 21/13 (Ref: HRD/R/02 dated 06.08.2013 annexed herein as ANNEXURE A1; and quash and aside ANNEXURE-A1 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles, 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Call for records leading to Letter No. 1(2)/2013-HR dated 10.09.2013 and e-mail communication dated 24.10.2013 annexed herein as ANNEXURE-A7; and quash and aside ANNEXURE-A7 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles, 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Direct the Second and Third Respondents to extend the contracts of the Applicants on the expiry of their present contracts on the strength of the annual performance reports.
Direct the Second and Third Respondents to consider the case of the Applicants for regularization in accordance with Clause 18.1.4 or Clause 18.1.5 of the Bye laws of the Society.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants who are employees of Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), Noida were recruited on different dates between January, 2005 and July, 2006 to the post of Scientific Officer in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 on contract for three years. Subsequently, they were promoted to the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.5400 and appointed as Technical Officer. According to the applicants the appointment was to be on contract for five years or co-terminus with the project on which the applicants were deployed. The applicants are now aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.08.2013 laying down review of employees on grade based contract. According to the applicants as per this Memorandum the renewal period of the contract has been reduced to a maximum of three years and may be as short as one year. The applicants have also stated that the respondents have completely ignored their own bye laws and service rules while passing the aforesaid order.
3. The respondents have filed their reply in which they have opposed the averments of the applicants and have stated that the applicants were appointed under Clause 18.1.8 of the Bye Laws and were on project based contract. There was, therefore, no requirement of renewal of their contract for a period of five years.
4. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record.
4.1 It is seen that identical issued was agitated before Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal through OAs No. 950/2012, 949/2012, 964/2012 and 990/2012. These OAs were filed by CDAC employees appointed as Staff Scientist with the respondents. These OAs were decided by a common judgment on 05.092013, the operative part of which reads as follows:-
14. Arguments were heard and documents perused.The notification having reflected that the appointment is one of contract basis and the same is for different grades as contained in the advertisement, vide Annexure R-1, the term 'grade based contract' cannot be faulted with. For, the respondents have classified the contract one as the aforesaid Grade Based Contract and the other as Project based contract as is evident from clause 18.1.2 and 18.1.8 of Annexure A-8. Thus, use of the term Grade Based Contract is perfectly in tune with the advertisement as well as the stipulated Rules.
15. Clause 18.1.2 of Annexure A-8, read with clause 1(f) of Annexure A-2 would mean that where there is a renewal, the same shall not be less than for a period of five years at a time and such a renewal is permissible till one attains the age of superannuation. In the instant case, there is nothing wrong in subjecting the applicants to performance appraisal test or interview but what is to be seen is whether the authorities are vested with the powers to truncate the period of renewal. The stipulated rules at Annexure A-8 do not permit so. Thus, once an individual is found not unfit, his tenure should be extended at the pace of five years at a time. From this point of view, the respondents have gone wrong in first of all putting a ceiling of only three years even for the best candidate and reducing the same to two years six months for others who have been adjudged below 'extraordinary'. Thus, Annexure A-12 is liable to be struck down in so far as it reduced the renewal period below five years.
Consequently, orders issued in pursuance of the said Annexure A-12 and the interview conducted, vide Annexure A-16 etc., are all illegal and are to be quashed in so far s they stipulated the period of renewal for less than 5 years.
16. As regards the claim of regular appointment in terms of Clause 18.1.5.2, the said terms are of discretionary character and the applicants have not acquired any right to insist that they should be appointed on regular basis under the said clause. However, if the appointment on regular basis by way of direct recruitment takes place for the said post, the same would not be in accordance with the stipulated rules, since direct recruitment could be resorted to only in respect of higher posts as contained in clause 18.1.3.
17. In view of the above, these OAs are partly allowed. It is declared that the truncation of the renewal period as contained in Annexure A-12 is illegal and consequently, Annexure A-12 is quashed to that extent. Consequential orders of renewal are also to be deemed quashed in so far as they stipulate the span of renewal for a period below five years. It is also declared that those whose term has been extended in pursuance of the performance appraisal, would have a full tenure of five years from the date of expiry of the initial period of five years' contract, vide Annexure A-2 offer. It is also declared that the respondents in their own discretion consider the case of the applicants for regularization.
5. In our view, the facts and issues involved in these O.As are similar to the OAs decided by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal. Hence, they are squarely covered by the judgment dated 05.09.2013. Accordingly, we dispose of these O.As by directing the respondents to give the same benefits to the applicants of these O.As as were granted to the applicants of OAs No. 950/2012, 949/2012, 964/2012 and 990/2012 by order dated 05.09.2013 of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal. No costs.
6. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each of the case file.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/