Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Binod Agarwal vs M/O Commerce on 2 May, 2018
l 3 % E i 1 OA/725/2017 -if _T T CENTRAL EDMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNEL I BENCH , MUIEAI -;s:rT---. :r-Tc.~---e.
ORIGINHL.APPLICATION£§O.725/2017 3:
Date of Decision: ifi May, 2018. 5 c0RAM:Ho1~:'BLE sear ARVIND J. ROHEE, ERgJ) 5HON'BLE sue: R. vgaaqumg, ERgm A . .:1 Binod Agarwal ' S/o Sitaram agarwal * Aged 35 years _ Working as IT Adviser Seepz Special Economic Zone Andheri (E) 400096 :\i ii R/o Flat no 515, palms l Royal palms, Aarey Colony l 21 5 Mumbai 400065. 4 E
- ...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Applicant in person ) ' Versus.
fi% T?;
' 1. The Union of India ' Through the Secretary Q Ministry of Commerce & Industry Department of Commerce Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-- ll0l07. 5 i
2. The Chairperson and Development Commissioner \ Seepz Special Economic Zone \ Anderi(East), Mumbai 400096.
i
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner and Estate \ \ L Manager, Seepz Special Economic Zone Anderi(East), Mumbai 400096. \ L . 4. Ms Urvashi Thakar A-202 Mithila Apartment Opp- Beauty Shop, Kandivali(w) ;fi1.%:4 e4 4 SV Road, Mumhai 400067. 4 .e*""§;fl W1»
-.,-H Q .. Respondents.
5Eli \ i \ { ....... H ""'""'""""""""-'"*::.-*:.:;:*""i'i*'
------------- -- %i»?'?? } ix Q.... . .1F.%3.\..>..§\/;"
.T.,:r.c \ \ i 2 OA/725/2017 \ a 5 (Respondents by Advocate: Shri.B.K. Ashok for R-1 \ \ \ to 3 and Ms.Ra1ina Manoj for R---4) . \ J» i Reserved on : 11.04.2018.
Pronounced on : $2..» Q5' 20%'
9. R13 \ J. (Per Shri R.Vijaykumar, Member iAJ 5 This application has been filed under i i section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. i ii The applicant was serving with the Respondent No.2 (R-2) as I.T. Adviser and his services were verbally terminated.cn1 20.9.2017 anwi his biometric access in i;
i office was discontinued from 21.9.2017. He has claimed the following reliefs:-
i |€ "a). That this Hon'ble Tribunal will "be \ graciously pleased to callfor records of the \ i case from the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned appointment order of Respondent No.4 dated \ 25.10.l7[A~1) and verbal order of termination \ :
of' services cu? Applicant cn1 20.09.17, with \ \ consequential benefits.
b). This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to allow the Salary of the Applicant to continue as run written letter for i termination/reliving is provided and Applicant cannot join anywhere in absence of i\ the reliving letter.
c). Such order or orders as this Hon'ble iv\ 5 Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and \ :
circumstances ofthecasebegranted.
d}. Cost of this application may be -Jfl'*-_mu
provided." \
\
E
5 i
\
E
.. . .. . ... . . .. . . . . . . . .- . ..... ........ 1 \_{{€_:§?__v_\?___fi§ {F ?i'$vW% U Wax )vfi%§{
1.
3 OA/725/2017
2. The factual matrix is that the applicant was serving in the Navy for about 15 years and he was called for an interview on 14.12.2015 by R-2 in view of their need for an I.T. Adviser to follow up on initiatives for Digital India for developing online transactions. Since he was not able to attend the interview, he states that he was given an alternative date and he attended and thereafter gave a letter (Annexure--A*2) dt. 11.12.2015 conveying that there is no provision of deputation from the Indian Navy and that he would join after resigning from the Indian Navy and thereafter, joined in the post of I.T. Adviser/I.T. Officer. Thereafter, R-2 sent a letter on 18.2.2016 advising that his candidature will be purely on contract basis subject to qualifications, is merit etc. On this offer, it appears that the applicant resigned from the Indian Navy and was re § relieved on 4.6.2016 and informed the R-2 that he \ would join on 6.6.2016. The corresponding File i 1 No.Admn/Per/BA/1/16-17 which is the first personal file of the applicant, shows that it contains draft appointment order specifying contract of 11 months commencing from 6. 6.2016 to 6. 5 .2017 with ii s...//' K * :-an"-,.-2 .. .... 'F E 2 _._._._.===?..§.§§ ....................
his E i \ 4 OA/725/2017 consolidated remuneration cxmmmted (n1 rememployment i \ basis an: Rs.47,256/- includingr T1A. euui Telephone i E i charges. when this draft letter dt. 29.1.2016 was E proposed to the Development Commissioner RHZ, he inquired about the leave arrangements which were not i specified and there was no development thereafter in this file. The applicant states that after he joined E E I on 6.6.2016, he continued till 27.7.2016 and on this day he resigned since he was not getting salary and it remains unpaid till date. Thereafter, he was invited by R-2 to meet him and then when he met R-2 on 10.10.2016 he was asked to resume duties' and assured that all pending dues would be cleared and an appointment. order FEMS issued. finally (n1 20.1.2017 i i:
E E appointing him on contract basis for a period of 12 5 i months commencing from 10.10.2016 to 10.9.2017. The i, i i] appointment letter reads as under:
"...No.SEEPZ--SEZ/ADMN/PER/BA/1/l6~l7/01636 20, January, 2017 E\ To, Mr. Binod Agarwal, \ IT Adviser, AV-15, New Navy Nagar, i Colaba E Mumbai-400005 \ Sub: Appointment Letter Sir 'i E it/' |-r\-"Q i .-=""'J_ i V'-
:vI""
\ +5 :§| L E1% 1!!1:! 111! 1\.1 E 5 OA/725/2017 1 1 E 5 5 With reference to your application dated 1 1 04, Oct, 2016 this to inform you that '.
the Competent Authority has appointed you as 1 IT Adviser, and considering your past experience 111 Indian Navy, j11 terms cm? GFR Provision for a period one year i.e. form 15 10.10.2016 to 10.09.2017, subject to i following term and conditions:
1E (1). The contract shall be valid for a. 1 period of 12 months commencing from 1 5 10.10.2016 to 10.09.2017. 1 1 5 E (2). The consolidated remuneration admissible I:
shall be Rs.75,000/H (SeventyFive Thousand only) per month with 10% escalation if the contract is renewed. The conveyance allowance of Rs. 1500/--p.m. & Telephone allowance of 15 11 11 Rs.1000/-p..m. will be paid exclusive of the monthly consolidated remuneration. 1' 1 i (3). The working hours will be flexible from 5 9:30 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Saturday.
Saturday will remain working if your services are required or called for meeting by Joint Development Commissioner E; Development Commissioner.
(4).. You shall be responsible for all official work related to IT Hardware and Software.
(5). In the event of exigency, you shall attend the assigned work after normal 1 working" hours or cn1 holidays, even. outside office.
(6). You shall undertake not ix) divulge the confidential information particularly as follows:
§ E i. Not to use or permit or enable any person ix: use any (mi. the confidential 1 information in any manner. 1 1 ii. Not to disclose or divulge any 1 Confidential information to snug person. not 1 authorized by the authority and shall limit 1% access to the Conidential Information to only 1 1 1 1 such. personnel authorized kn; the- competent 1 authority. 1 (I E 1 5 Obligations under this ciause ix) the extent 1 .15%1 ..
-. #_cfl.__,_.-.
'E
1
=1=
I1
-.~
I
6 OA/725/2017
provided shall continue to apply
even after termination or _expiry of this
Contract.
(7). The performance will be revicwed time to time by Development Cornmissioner during your contract period.
(8). In the event of dissatisfactory performance, this office reserves the right to terminate the appointment by giving one month's prior notice in writing.
Similarly, the same can be discontinued by you kn? giving iJ1 writing cnma month's prior notice txn the Development Commissioner of SEEPZ SEE Office.
(9) Leaves: You will be granted 8 days Casual leaves during the contract period. on availing 8 days leave, all other approved leaves, deduction shall be made from monthly payable remuneration.
(lO).Medical facility: You will be eligible for medical facility from Seven Hills Hospital where you can get medical treatment on concessional rate if granted by hospital management.
(1l).0ther travel allowance: you will be eligible .for ouststation 'travelling allowance to official purpose only, the same shall be on actual basis at applicable rates.
(l2).You. shall jpay EH1 amount equivalent "to ore month's remuneration, in case you fails to serve one 1nonth's notice as mentioned j11 clause (8) zxf this contract of discontinuation.
(l3}.Before joining, you shall furnish acceptance of the above terms and conditions.
Yours Faithfully, (V. P. Shukla) Jt. Development Commissioner SEEPZ SEZ" 5 .-""\ ";
E ..-»~"""" ,
'ii/i l
/y I g F :
k _ '_____ _____ .... ........ - . - v . - . . . \. \ . --~~-~ ~~-~~ 1"-'-;'f=:~.°'~'='-':==:=--"-"*1 ****** '-"-'"'"-- "\>z_m j» 2435
x?T§>>>/< =1. \(1;s<< zi *4' .l= | i! i§\§ HE ii
i)' =ai15l §(!
5);! ii!51;! wi i 7 OA/725/2017
3.. An office orde r was also issued thereafter 5% =12 ix:
conveying these details and also directing that he i i:
E E would. assist Development Commissioner" on all I.T.
-RF» related. matters and. will be responsible for 5 implementation. of relevant 1.T. (Hardware and \ Software) in the Unit under the jurisdiction of \ E i Development. Commissioner; SEZ. The .applicant asked \ for the dues for June and. July, 2016 letter dt.
12.7.2017 znui received.ru> reply, inn; meanwhile, the
DC got "transferred znui ea new' incumbent. came into i
't for re-appointment
position. Ike submitted E1 reques \
on 8.8.2017 and. while he was awaiting orders on
request for renewal, he applied for leave from
:12
21.9.2017 to 29.9.2017. However, on 20.9.2017 the 1%
E!
applicant 'was "verbally informed. that his services
were terminated and he found that his biometric
access vans deactivated (n1 21.9.2017. Thereafter, a
letter No.SEEPZ-SEZ/ADMN/P.G./423/14-15/23373 dt. ,
i
22.11.2017 was issued to the applicant by R-2
following his grievance Petition explaining the \
E
\
circumstances of his being directed to hand over and 1
1
i
the payment made of wages up to 20.9.2017 in sanction 2
order No.248/2017 dt. 14.11.2017. Thereafter, it i
i
appears that the R*2 has appointed another consultant (E
:
i
iii)' 'i1*\'2\_\}§ 311?; \,
-n. ~._-
8 OA/725/2017 and upon compliance received from the applicant, R-1 IF-M has directed R~2 to conform to the Rules, to the laid down procedures of the Department of Expenditure in their letter dt. 14.3.2018 and this has been confirmed by respondents after resignation by R-4 in mhli-lI\ -lI\lI\ l their letter dt. 19.3.2018.
4. The applicant contends that when he had re-
joined CH1 10.10.2016, he lwni been verbally assured that his contract would continue and for comparison, he refers to the other consultants for Hindi, Legal, Export Oriented Units whose appointment is renewed every year automatically after submission of letters by the individuals. He also alleges that the private consultant later appointed in his place was known to R-2 and this is why she had been appointed in violation of the established procedure. In particular, he has challenged the verbal termination order followed by letter dt. 22.11.2017, as a violation of his contractual terms since even as per the contract, he was to be given one month's notice.
5. The respondents in their reply have emphasized that the applicant was a contractual consultant and denied that there was any agreement to continue him in his service by renewing his contract .-¢\""°"'-fit) k .»~"'*"' aw"; '_ .. .. .,_ ~~~~~~~ 5> i "A i z i 9 OA/725/2017 i every year. They also referred to a resignation i letter that ins gave (n1 w.e.f. 11.5.2017 ill letter No.PA/01 dt. 9.5.2017 mentioning the dissatisfaction expressed by the Development Commissioner (R-2) and *2 that he re--joined on 26.5.2017 on the plea that by withdrawing his resignation. They emphasized in is accordance with their letter dt. 22.1.2017 that the 5 E applicant's contractual period was up to 10.9.2017 1i E and then it was only on discovery, later on, that his E contract period had expired that they decided to ask him to leave and since had worked up to 10.9.2017, wages for that period of 10 days was also paid to him. .
6. In his rejoinder, he has contested the argument of the respondents that contractual employees of the SEEPZ do not come within the 3 2 i jurisdiction of this Tribunal and refers to the 5 decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Awadhesh Singh v. Union of India & Ore. that Section E i 28 of the Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is left to the option of the Workman to i choose between the CAT, Industrial Tribunal or Labour E Court. He also points out to the error in the 5 appointment order issued.cn1 20.1.2017, which refers 7712 HF is 2 is . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . _ ,..... /. . . .. . . . . . . . ... ____ ........ ....... ___ __ _ _ _ \ _ \_ \ _ v v _ _ § _ P § _ P N ? * * I N " I H W _ I A I H J;
Q "" 9 K X'? -----4 5="5**~"'"""""""""""""""""""' \\\
- r.- .-.T..._._.___________ __ M-"T-wv-:
510 0Al725/2017' E E to the period of one year and also the period of 12-
months, but fixed the period from 10.10.2016 to 112 :2 151 10.9.2017 which he argues is a clerical error, since 1:
i;§ :2 12 months period ends on 9.10.2017. With reference to 2 5 his letter dt. 9.5.2017 and his return after 1i 15. resignation to office of R-2, he mentions that R-2 =_--;T-.:rc.
had called him after his resignation. Thereafter, he refers to letter No.SEEPZHSEZ/ADMN/PER/BA/1/16- % 17/11560 dt. 12.6.2017 (Anne2<:;ure--A--6) by which R-2 has confirmed approval of his withdrawal of i 5 i resignation_ given .in time letter' dt. 26.6.2017 and ii i |1§ which was issued with the approval of the Development 12 |~:
:< Commissioner. On the issue of end of contract on 10.9.2017, he refers to the error in computing 12 :hi15 months in the appointment letter. He also refers to 5 i page No.19 of the Note in file No.ADMN/PER/BA/16-17, 5 5 his personal file by which a proposal was placed on 14.9.2017 for continuing his service for a further period.cnf 12 months from 11.9.2017 ixn 9.8.2018 and 2 that, as directed by Competent Authority his contract 5 5 5 could be extended from one month from 11.9.2017 to i 10.10.2017. Although this noting ends with the decision to relieve the applicant vide Noting dt. 1'?
20.9.2017 on the same day on the issue of the renewal i w is ........ _.... . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . . ,_ , , > >,_\_, ,, X I \\\_____ F =.
.. .>---__ H -"mum-"umI-II-II-----II---I-I--II-I-I-II:-I-I-1-I-II-9-Z-1'-53-"""""" '_:_:j'_""-'-1'-"§""""""1;;j_'_1j; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- , s'.'~'<'I'-1I-TT1"IIIEH1I"C1:7It3"m:.c-:-:-:r1=r=-:-=r-==-
2/ \ ..2......\ .-- . . .-. ....
1i;
;_.
_J:T _J:T :T nT'H. 12 11 ' OA/725/2017' 11;5 of his contract, he submits that he was never issued =?4.a-AT=..2-a:rc."--
any letter conveying displeasure or dissatisfaction _-TI t-CT"?-flCfi_€Tr\.T-" wv-:tI of his work. Further, he had resigned from a permanent position with the Indian Navy and came for 515 this job only because it was likely to be of regular n.T -_T JIflC :1;
15|1i nature and that he was orally assured that it would T T:fl ' be continued. While assuring that he has done 1 25 15 tremendous work, he has challenged replacement of his 5 I contractual. employment 'with. another contractor' and refers to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of 5 5 New Delhi in the case of Chitra Sharma v. Airlines 55 1 Services Ltd. and. .Anr. (LEA. 142i2017 & CM 5 15 No.7912/2017) and the State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Ore. (1992 (4) SCC 118) to support his claim that 12155 Y 5 515 one contractual. employee cannot kxa substituted. by .1! 15 5 another contractual employee by an instrumentality of the State as long as the need for the service 5 continues, unless there are valid reasons given for not continuing the contractual employment.
7. The R--4 has filed a reply stating that she é 1% "E had applied for the post of Business Analyst with Mahaonline Limited and the respondents had sought the help of that Company to appoint her as I.T. Adviser and she had been appointed with due procedure for 5 .171 he 5 E 1 5 2 > 7 H-up "H-Wu"
'''' 7"-7777-7--rI.H':HM-I'I-u----------:11--1"11--H--mI-II::-u-'II-mu-"H-H-nu----urn"HI7I-firzaa-um7'-';Em'7"'F'= ----------------- ..
E '.-----,--~-.----..----- ---. .- .- - .. .. - ... _ _ =-> 3 1 5 2 12 '1 5 15 5 2 2 5 12 . OAH25/2017 5 that period. She claims that after she was appointed, she learnt that that it was only a temporary 5 contractual job. R~1 and R-2 have filed surerejoinder 5 reiterating their stand that applicant was a 5 5 5 o could contractual consultant and not an employee wh 15 fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. They I denied iflua application.<yf time decision fill Awadhesh 5 Singh (supra) saying that the facts of the case 5 differ from the present one. With reference to the 5 citations of the applicant to the Judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi and of State of 1:
|.
Haryana, they say that the facts are different and that those decisions would not apply in the present case. They say that the applicant was a contractual consultant who was employed on contract for a specific period and his services were terminated when 11 the period expired. In their view, this Tribunal has 5 no jurisdiction in his case. R-4 has also filed a 5 sur--rejoinder giving time details cm5'various persons W ho were interviewed hf; the position and further 5 stated that she had resigned on 5.3.2018 and would be relieved on 4.4.2018. 5 5 5 8. The matter has been considered in the facts 1 5 5 and circumstances of the case. The respondents were 1 '1 *5 1 I '''' ... . . .. . . . .. /. ''''' _ _ _ __ T .iiii'h'-H-H-H ...-_. .._......_-,-.:.-.:.-.:- :.-.:.;- ......... .. -§€:;€§.l:;.;;~2-fig-\:§<,.{\,,.!,¥.:,_:_, ___fl_ I, Tat! _ J' "M_-:_-_|r_< J" H- I ' ' " - '1' - = = '"-'"**'='"-51*1e"15'1'*1==e'25'?5?§'1?¢1115%=:~*=511e5.e25' 5 L '.5 1
1511;':
513 OA/725/2017 5 directed. to jproduce their files, which they' have 5 5 5 done, and these have been carefully examined.5
9. The first .issue ix: be= decided .is cna the 5 aspect of jurisdiction. Reference to the citation by the applicant decided by the Full Bench of the 1 5 Hon"ble High Court of Calcutta considered the cases 1 5 of employees who were attached under Eastern Railway Contractors Workers' Union and Liluah Belur Co- 5 5 operative Labour Contract and Construction Society 15 5 Ltd. The matter therein was in relation to their 5 5 claims for absorption/regularization as Group 'D' employees and the question was whether they could approach the CAT or the Industrial Tribunal. The Court held that they had both the options available 1 to them. In OA No.621/2012 decided by Ernakulam Bench .1, of this Tribunal on 10.6.2013, the cases of Ex- 1 Servicemen appointed on daily wages contract through Zilla Sainik; Board. by respondents Cochin SEZ was considered" The applicants had. approached. the 5 5 5 Tribunal with the grievance that they had been orally asked.1x> get themselves registered 1ni11 an outside contract agency who would then be employed by the Cochin SEZ. The issue of jurisdiction was not raised in the case, but the Recruitment Rules of respondents 5 @<7\ I 1//1' 55; 1551?/J .-;;@""' 1 1 1 .. .. »--~ -- ».-.-. . .. '''''">' """"""""""".. \1 "' 5 ?:<<¥'"'=/?""2<¢ 5 1 va>x's: x__ 1 14 OA/725/2017 had a hierarchy comprising Security Guards and higher posts for which the Security Guard post had a provision for direct recruitment through the Zilla Sainik Board. In the present case it has not been denied by respondents that the applicant had originally applied against an advertisement for the post of Assistant Development Commissioner. It is evident from the record that when they could not appoint him through a deputation arrangement with the Indian Navy, he resigned from the Navy and joined.
Therefore, it cannot be said that there are no Recruitment Rules and in fact, as confirmed by R-1 who gave instructions to R-2 on the relevance of the procedure required for recruitment, there are also established procedures for engaging persons on regular basis, as well as, on contract basis. When such persons have been employed under R2-2 who are themselves notified for the purpose of jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, there can be no plea that for the purpose of a contractual employee who fills in for the regular post, the 1 5 jurisdiction of this Tribunal is ousted.
10. The applicant has also pointed out that they 1 5 are seeking to displace him by another contractual /*7' W1.
"'--.
t-TE-5
1.
_ 15 OA/725/2017
employee and has referred to two Judgments of the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. However, the
decision. of the Hon'ble Apex. Court in Secretary,
State Of Karnatalca and Ors. v. Umadevi and Others,
(2006 (4) SCC 1) is now the 'settled law on the
subject. In the case of the applicant, although he
E
E
has raised objections to the deviation from the
i
\
procedure by" way of reference to the manner for
procurement cflf consultancy enui other services, it
appears that after the initial advertisement for
appointment as Assistant Development Commissioner had i'i
closed because of an evident lack of suitable
applicants, the respondents had resorted to a
temporary contractual arrangement. As a result, one-
on~--one interview seems to have been held with the
applicant and Ins was appointed.cn1 contractual basis for one year. Although he claims that he was verbally promised to continue in the contract beyond one year, there is nothing in the contract, file, or any correspondence to show that this was likely to be done. The applicant has submitted that other consultants are being similarly employed for further periods, Inn; that is zni administrative decision and the circumstances of their appointment are also not /.
' l /I7 was
" " I"IH'""""'.:II'I-II-'-'-'-I""""""'""/-§"""E-1'!-'-'-"-='="':;';_:_;_:':1-:*-*---.-::<::'-I-~---f::»-------_----........._.......,:._.;V:.___._:____::______':::___':1:__:},__ 541%
W,<v i ___ __ <* _ ______ \__ _____ _ __ _MM_____________H_ __ __ _ _ ...... . -.P J9* 16 OA/725/2017 clear. Therefore, the applicant cannot draw a.
parallel with those cases. Reference to the initial file when orders were proposed on 29.6.2016 proposing a contract for 11 months from June, 2016 to May, 2017, shows that the remuneration proposed was on re~ employment basis. This contrasts with the contractual appointment that was proposed in the appointment letter and may suggest that it was only an initial probationary exercise and.cxnflr11ms either continued by further contractual offers or else by 1 E regularization. However, this letter inns not issued and the reasons for non--issue are unclear and that cannot become a basis for claiming either continuance of contract by further extensions or regularization.
11. With. regard ix: the contract executed. vide appointment letter dt. 20.1.2017, the letter as replicated above has zn1 inherent contradiction that it says that the contract is for one year and thereafter for 12 months, but the termination date is specified as 10.9.2017 instead of 9.10.2017.
Evidently, the clerk has neglected to note that this was a 12 months contract period and not the same as time 11 months contract period proposed when initial appointment VHMS considered cn1 29.6.2016. Therefore,
-
M""R1F 15' E I ......................................................... .. !5 .
""":""."'::"InIP'W_"I"'"'"""W"""""'"""""':r:"""-----------.7;-_---.-.-:-.-:;.-:-.-:-.-:-.-.--.:.-.:-.-.:i= , \.... -3 __ ................... W_.;:==:=EE;-;-E1:==E?$?.'I1;_};_:_:;.j.§.;;;.;_;_;_;_;_;;-;-;;;-;_-;»;-- 5;-.2,-;i;.:;,;3§z<?;..?;;:&..fi/4 ___________\_______fi_________' _':___:__w__W__=;__,\., §>V_,fifi_ ,_ _ ii . .. . . ._ . - _- . ;-_..._.§'._=-,_=f.-_=_-__,,-__:-_;._.:_ /;;;;_~;_;._-:::-:-:-:-.;;.;;_=_=_;;.-.-.-Q-_:_2--§-5;;-_-.1 ,.:555;;{:_,__,$_:_E5:§_¥,i>(¢/¢<a/é,\€_;&)%' 17 OA/725/2017 this could either be a typographical error as suggested by the applicant or it could be an error of habit which could contemplate the change now proposed under the signed orders of the Development Commissioner viz. R*2. Faced with this, it would be correct to go by the words of the contract and adopt the termination date as 9.10.2017.
12. The respondents have referred to his resignation dt. 9.5.2017 w.e.f. 11.5.2017 on the basis of the expressed dissatisfaction of the R-2, but he joined immediately after and contrary to the claim of respondents in their affidavit of reply, he was permitted to re-join by withdrawal of resignation in a letter issued by the R-2. When he was permitted to withdraw his resignation, it would be deemed that the contract continued and terminated on 9.10.2017 as discussed above.
13. The applicant was terminated orally on 20.9.2017. This is also confirmed by examination of the note made in the file although there is a distinct possibility that these notes were contrived subsequently given the manner in which he was sought to be replaced. The noting also reflects an initial dec n to extend the contract from 11.9.2017 to l7J\H Aw.5.
l\""-_...J15 .~r-""
T"EMV""""'""'"'*=11==2:-i=1-:--'-';--------~--_;;;;;;-_¢.;_;.;_=_=;=;_;_- _-,,-.._,,.._,_. x, X _ ..- =9 18 OA/725/2017 10.10.2017 recommending* that time 12 imonths jperiod correctly ended on 10.10.2017. Following this noting of 14.9.2017, the situation quickly changed by 20.9.2017 to decide to relieve him. Thereafter, the orders were issued terminating his contract only on 14.11.2017 claiming that he had been employed for 10 days beyond his termination date of 10.9.2017 up to 20.9.2017 for which wages were being paid adopting the daily wages rate.
14. If we adopt the stand of the respondents that the contract ended on 10.9.2017 and the applicant continued on the job with an evident consent up to 20.9.2017,_ that would imply the continuation of the contract and the R-2 is bound by the terms of contract by which he was obliged to give one month's notice or pay. Even in such a case, he would have to give a letter of termination and any termination would be effective from that date.
Further, as pointed out by the applicant, if he were to be able to apply to other firms for a job he will be expected to produce an experience certificate including for conduct which the respondents have failed to provide. It is also noted by the applicant that he had submitted a detailed handing over note mi '_,.|--
v_,.»-F
UHF
. H
--'\.-I=11--I---""'_::3_'".'.1If;.'.1,1:,1'E?:f,9-::a::{-E--y/£1'vvvv W?Q5,_y:1:Z________________iF:EF________1___;11________:::::-_______:+:-H _____________________ "F I --I ' I fi fi ' ' "Nu
H * 1 """""""""""""*
1
:
1
1
19 OA/725/2017 2
for his successor in the post and it cannot be denied 1%
by respondents that lwa had f&il€d.jJ1 his duty. The 1
E
respondents are, therefore, clearly on the wrong side E 1 1 of the law" with reference to both their act of E termination and for the denial of issue of an 1 experience certificate including of conduct to the 5 Z 1 applicant.
15. Again, considering inns other aspect cnf the 5 E 5 fact that the contract actually ended on 9.10.2017 as E E discussed above and a termination letter was actually 1% 2 1% given only on 14.11.2017, the period between 9.10.2017 to 14.11.2017 was also a period of employment for which there is a legal obligation on R-2, particularly' because, in the absence of any :
.5 experience certificate, the applicant cannot secure employment elsewhere and had been rendered without employment for failure attributable directly to respondents. On the same analogy as in the previous paragraph, the letter dt. 14.11.2017 would constitute Z a decision taken by the employer in the extended 1 contract for 12 months beyond 9.10.2017. Viewed in E both the manner analysed in this present paragraph and the previous paragraph, the applicant was served with termination notice only on 14.11.2017 and not .1.
.. ......
""""*-'-*-"1"""""""""""""""" "'""'"'===-"'"'>"'"z5.=.=.:-:-3;2as'-'-':=:'<==="r.';_'.:::,,,,,,,,*" .'W
€%._>,=,E,._.;,?g?>,;1,3.¢_..;>_.q.;,?:.Mi§§fs;_..;;.,?y,§}$_>§,_§>§§_,:4.?{,_.,_,._;.... » ~ - ;-1;: 1-_1_:-3+;---'-'-*-1.......... ..-m=-1-----;v;---==;=>-1v»->---*11.:-ma.-.-<:.<~.~=.:****~=-- .;._::._.. fix §_ 5% __.._ __ Q E .. 1 20 OA/725/2017 before and a verbal termination can have no basis or validity in law.
16. The applicant has also referred to his two months of employment from 6.6.2016 to 27.7.2016 for which no salary was paid to him. As we have mentioned before, the terms of employment proposed in the relevant file were on re-employment basis which is customarily intended for persons to be employed on a long-term rather than on a contract. The remuneration proposed in that order was Rs.47,256/~ p.m. including Travelling Allowance plus Telephone charges after reducing the amount of pension which was got verified by the Pay and Accounts Officer. However, this appointment letter was never issued. and the only available reference ;xflrn;:hs the appointment letter of 20.1.2017 which prescribes a Basic Pay of Rs.75,000/--, Conveyance Allowance cm? Rs.1,500/-- and E Telephone Allowance cnfIRs.1,000/-, is1 additidn to 8 days casual leave. There .is run rebuttal from. the respondents that the remuneration for this period is due to the applicant and it is therefore payable to him. Since the only available material on the agreed salary is the order dt. 10.1.2017, the remuneration prescribed therein would also apply for this period "E
-»---- ------- --- _ _ _______ ________ - - - » ~ - - , - » , ~ - - » ~ » ~ . . . \ ~ . . . . . 1 . . . t . . » . . x . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
}"'-"' " /------. .-;-_...._-,. "-"-"' --\-::::-_-;:-_-;:-_-;_-__----i-- -----¢_-rm .............................. . _ <- \\,__._._._<§, WINHH 'UH >_h _ >
----- ~- <--
\\__________z______ ¥._._.....p........ ,: . . . . . . . \. . . . . .
1 R"
; » -_¢ . h ...
xx n*~>x<111-a x <1~11 <*
i
.,,§:I\
21 OA/725/2017
and would. be payable to the Applicant alongwith
equivalent cash for leave not availed.
17. In consequence, this O.A. is partly allowed.
Given the settled. law in Umadevi fisupral, it is not possible to dictate to the respondents to extend the period of consultancy for the applicant or to regularize him in service. It is also to be borne in 1 5 mind by the respondents that they have never E expressed their displeasure or dissatisfaction at the services of the applicant and therefore, they would have to exercise caution and follow the principles of E natural justice while engaging another contract employee .rn furs position, :natural1y j11 compliance with the pmescribed procedures, especially since it "E 1 is now' vacant. with. the resignation 13f tfima person 1 appointed irregularly by the respondents. Respondents 1i ti";|'T.-1_T are also directed. to pay salary due for the period 6.6.2016 to 27.7 2016 as specified above along with E interest computed @ 12% on the sum due. Further, the 1 respondents are also directed to consider the date of termination letter dt. 14.11.2017 as the notice for E termination and pay all wages up to that date along 1% F with notice pay of one month thereafter along with 1:1
i encashment (Hf leave available in lmms leave account.
1 t , *|I."
w H H "W I"-:m::-----V:::---":1-'T'\ I X§I>\\\I§\\\\\I §IV§ . _..\.\ ._ 3F_I_L:-_1_'\' 71;:;,:r.-.-.1.-.-Eff-E{=33-Y-'5'-E-:=;'I_'-I-EEI-I-I_=_F.' ________ "wg i ,5 _,';E5'=15-1.'-1r-'-'"'jj'~'r\'.-.-.::r.-.:_~r -< - -»~--=11-3; _-_fl.1-=-.---.-.-.-= N . . _ . . H . _ __ K %;|?¢>\.::\ \ _ J L| 1 22 OA/725/2017 These amounts shall also be paid along with other dues along with interest of 12% up to the date of disbursement. The respondents are also directed to issue the applicant a proper letter certifying his 1 experience with full facts to the extent necessary in 1 i relation to his conduct within one week of the receipt of these orders. _ E 18. In view of the harassment caused to the 1 applicant, the respondents are directed to bear all his legal costs and since he appeared in person after initial appearance through his learned counsel, the cost for his appearance and arguing the case are assessed at Rs.26,000/-- which shall be paid to the applicant within two weeks of these orders.
1' fr"
I 1 /1% '1 .~
---.",
M ii i ** /...
'-"*'-v~m-vu-. ,m, w-.
if' If
?w"W.Il-\?VI\ I
(R. Vlj/amykumar) (A. J,..»R0hee)
Member(A) Member(.])
1%
2
:
Bala/-ak 5
:
o.
"31 '\___ERj,_Rw;I"
ii .3'
1 1\.
I.
1
E
'-.
'=~4. kw.
'R.
12
2
1%
E
11
E
..__ ..........._... .-...:2,:-_._-....-,.___-________-..,.......- .-.-.-.-1..-.....-........--...-,.. ___,..,.. .. -.-..-I1.:I.-.-.....__.__.1.:EEF_._x,_,,>1.,<_._:_.,..._.,._,,._,._......,-_-__...-..-----z.
....... .--./..... '/-'-'-'--'-'--'-\\'r-=="-"
...... .... -. v, ------ -, -- .- ,. -_"§ E }3*> "§,|.f§> fiffi g ii? .-1