Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Subhash Singh vs National Technical Research ... on 10 November, 2022
1
Item No. 10
O.A. No. 1949/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1949/2017
This the10thday of November, 2022
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Subhash Singh, (Aged about 31 years)
Group D (M), NTRO
S/o Bhawan Singh Chaudhary
Resident of RZ-94, Gali No.12 B,
Kailash Puri, Palam Colony
Delhi -110045
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Suresh Sharma)
Versus
1. NTRO Through its
Chairman,
NTRO, Block-III,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
2. Controller of Administration,
NTRO, Block-III,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
3. Dy. Director Estt.II,
NTRO, Block-III,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K. Jain)
2
Item No. 10
O.A. No. 1949/2017
O R D E R (ORAL)
By way of the present O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:-
"(i) To declare the impugned Relieving Order dated 22nd March, 2017, relieving the applicant as Group D (Contractual) (rechristened as Group C (Contractual) as void ab initio for being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide.
(ii) To direct the respondent to take back the applicant on duty without any break with all the Consequential benefits
(iii) to allow the OA with cost.
(iv) pass any further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts that arise in the present O.A. are: The applicant was engaged on casual basis in the year 2007. After following the due process of selection, i.e., the written test followed by an interview, his mode of appointment was changed to contractual. He continued to serve the respondents until March, 2017, thereby his services have been terminated vide order dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure A-
1). Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred a representation on 19.04.2017 (pp.35 to 41), which is pending 3 Item No. 10 O.A. No. 1949/2017 consideration before the respondents. Accordingly, the applicant has filed this present O.A.
3. It is submitted that in spite of lapse of more than five years, the respondents have not decided the said representation. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the applicant submits:-
(i) That the termination order does not assign any reason and before terminating his services, the applicant was not put to any show cause notice. Therefore, the same is in complete violation of principles of natural justice;
(ii) That almost 100 contractual employees, including his juniors, who were appointed along with the applicant are still working with the respondents;
(iii) The only reason as revealed from the counter reply (p.3)is that "the applicant was absented himself for a period of 41 days w.e.f. 12.01.2017 to 21.02.2017 unauthorizedly and accordingly the said steps were taken by the respondents";
(iv) He relies on the agreement signed between the applicant as well as the respondents. In paragraph 9 of the 4 Item No. 10 O.A. No. 1949/2017 same, it is stipulated that the services of the applicant will be governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
4. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposes the O.A. and at the outset submits that the SOP relied by the applicant has, in fact, undergone a change and the last SOP was issued in 2016, whereby this last stint was governed by the said 2016 agreement. In the said agreement (p. 45 of the counter reply), it is clearly stipulated that:
"....Any deviation may result in summary termination of the contract and also make them liable for appropriate action as permissible under rules and law."
5. Further, in terms of sub-clause (ii) of Clause (VIII) Termination of Contract, any contract can be terminated by the Chairman, NTRO, if services are no longer required or on disciplinary grounds by giving summary notice/termination orders.
Therefore, the applicant is not governed by the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and since he was un- authorizedly absent for 41 days, which is much beyond 30 5 Item No. 10 O.A. No. 1949/2017 days, the respondents chose to terminate the services of the applicant.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the applicant did not perform his duties w.e.f. 12.01.2017 to 21.02.2017. However, with respect to the fact that whether the applicant was unauthorizedly absent, the submission of the learned counsel for respondents cannot sustain in view of p. 42 order dated 02.02.2017, wherein the applicant had duly intimated over phone with respect to his wife's hospitalization, as such he could not perform his duties. The said letter had been forwarded by his immediate superior to the Deputy Director (Establishment) in NTRO. Therefore, by no means, the applicant can be stated to be unauthorizedly absent from duty.
8. It is also hard to believe that when the reason for his not attending the duties is very much explained in his representation, the same is not decided by the respondents for the last five years. It is also seen that the impugned order does not espouse any reasons as to why the services are being dispensed with by the respondents. 6 Item No. 10 O.A. No. 1949/2017
9. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents shall consider the case of the applicant for re-appointment on contractual basis, if the work still exists for the applicant.
10. The O.A. is disposed of in the aforesaid term.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) Member (J) /anjali/