Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Dr Sunil Lata vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 3 August, 2023
OVA Nao? oF 2018 Central Administrative Tribmmnal Mumbai Bench, Mumbai > eserved on OF" of uly, 2023 Pronounced on @ of August, 2035 Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oheral, Member (7) 'Hon'ble Mr. Shei Krishna; Member (A) Or. Sun Lata, age S58 years, wo Dr. Surendra Kumar, retired Nesearch OHicer (Naren vedical), 'Human Reproduction Research Centre No.d06, TJ. Group of Hospitals, residing at C-902, Jal GuradeaComiplex, Plot No.6 to 19 and 21 to 23, Seetor 17 wow wearmoths, Navi Munmbarsid 206, a». Applicant (Mr. Vishal Shirke aby Mr. Aditva P. Shirke, Advacates) Versus 1. Union of india -. "Phreugh the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Pamily Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi- lO 018. Ne. The Director ¢ General, tndian Counc] & Medical Research, ¥, Ramaswamy Bhevan, Ansari Nagar, PB No49ll, New Delhi-116 G29, 3. 'The Director, National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health, Jahangir Merwanji Street, Pas cel, Mumbai-d00 OTS. "tunder Sectian 19 af Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking Tne OA Noo? af BEA 4. The Officer In-charge & Principal Investigator, Human Reproduction Research Centre of ICMR No. 406, OBST, Gynace Department, Sir J. Group of Hospitals, Maumbai-d00 O08, tft Dr. Rekha 8. Davas,, Investig gator & OMicer In-charge HRRC No.406, Profes asor & Head of Department Obst&Gynace, Sir JF Group of Hospitals, Byculla, Mumbai-400 008. . .. Respondents (Mr. A.V. Shinde for R-2 & 3, Advocate) ORDER
Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberai:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied by non-regulartzation in service on the post of Research Officer (aen-medioal) in the Nmman Reproduction Research Centre (HRRC) No.g06 of [OME and also agerioved of being forcibly retired from service on attaining the age of S8 years wie. 31.03.2015 by respondent No.4, even though contractual sclentisi/RO of ICMR is entitled to serve up to aliaining the age of G2 years, the anplicant has filed the instant OA.
the following reefs:
"a. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to eall forthe records of the case thom the Responds enis and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 31.05 2615. OA Nae? of 2016 Centers acrass the country. The research activities in human reproduction cannet be carded oul at an isolated space and requires referral of patients in Hospital and ivteractions with Ooctors. Therefore, such HRCECs have been established by LOMR in diferent Medical Colleges run by the State Government, Municipal Corporations, etc, Ia order to achieve on-ordination between the HRRC and the concerned Hospitals. the Head of the Department of Gynecology is usually naminated as the Officer In- charae & Principal | investigatar of the cancemed HEREC.
2.8 Tn Mambai, HOMR has setup 2 such HRRCs, vis. at KEM, Hespital nm by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and at J.J. Group of Hospitals run by the Maharashtra State deve ter er re nigt Rance tes tet re teehee Goverinent The said HRRC Centre No. 406 has been functioning since the year 1980. Even before formal nomenclature as HIRRC Centre Ne. 406, ICMR. used to carry out research protect at J. Group of Hospitals under differe at nomenclature. Thus, HRRC has been rumming research activities in JUL Group af Hospitals for last several decades. &.3 in pursnance to the advertisement issued by HRRC Centre No. 406 for appointment on the post of Research Officer in the:
year 2001-02, the soni = applied and was selected for appomiment thercsin, By office order dated O1.02.2002, she was. appouted on the post of Research Officer (Non-medical) w.e.f 01.02.2002 tM 31.01.2003 and which was extended on year to year basis. She was placed in the pay-scale af Rs. 8000-275-13500, which is pay-seals of Research Officer in ICMR. It is submitted GA Mo29? af 2016 tee Y that though her appointment. order was issued by Respondent No 4 (State Government), none of her service conditions were determined by the J. J. Group of Hospitals and were always determined by the ICMR. The Applicant undersiands that her hae appomtment as Research Officer (Non-medical) was approved by ICMR. Her salary in the Grade of Rs SGQ0-275-13500 was.
released by ICMR from time to time and paid to her through Respondent No. 4 as this {sa Central Government funded project. On ccampletion af one year on 31012003, her services were continued withaul issning any formal order to that effect. Thus; she contmaed to werk without any break in the said HREC Centre Ma. 406, 24 The recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission were implemented by ICME in the HRRC Centre No. 406 in the year ts 2011. By letter dated 25.04.2011, respondent No. 2 accorded permission to revise the pay of the applicant to Rs. 16.420/-+ Grade Pay of Rs. 5.400/-. The applicant was also paid an amount GF RS.7,66,338 on account of arrears in respect of period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2010. The applicant futher states thar the ICMR has always followed _ practice of appointing temporary officers and employses at various HRRC centres across the country. Apart from clerks and drivers, even medical professionals were beuig appointed on temporary basis on the HRRC projects on presumption that the prajiects were of temporary nature. Purther, it is submitted that as a matter of fact these HREC Centers have been functioning in the country for more than four ot OA Sa OF af BOs decades and it cannot be contended that the work tadertaken by such HRRC centers is of temporary nature. Seme of the emplayess working in HRRC centers in Chennai approached peed _ % ~ Sa MENS 3 Bes a ~ a " oe % Aer Ra ey oe te A Saye As Sa aN Sey Se hay SFE '4 oy epee ft Madras Bench of this Tribunal by filme various © TEMIAL Original Kogite calions came io be allowed by Madras Bench of the Tribunal vide Judament and Order dated 04.01.2001, holding that pee s.
the said eniplovees were working for more than two decades and that talane info consideration the growth in population, it cuuld nat be said thal the projects were likely to be closed in the near tame. Tt was held thet the research activities undertaken by HIRE are perennial in nature, The Tribunal therefore directed the <= i respondent fo consider the case of the applicants therem for resniarrzation of their service 235 The applicant further states that the said Judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal was challenged by ICMR before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by filing a series of Writ Petitions. (he said Writ Petitions came te be decided by the Hon'ble High Courts wide Hs "Judgment dated 2S.0R.2006 upholding the Orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, However, the Hon'ble High Court went ahead and directed the respondents ta regniarizge ihe services of the employees tram the date of their respective Initial appaintments. By the said judgment dated 25.08.2606, the Hon'ble Madras High Court also decided four Whit Petitions with regard to the regularization of services of x drivers wha were terminated frani serviee The order of Madras QA No.287 of 2016 Bench of the Tribunal was also upheld by the Hon'ble Hi gh Court. The Applicant farther states that the Judgment of the' Hon'ble Madras High Court was questioned by ICMR hefore the Hon'ble A supreme Court series of SILPs which came to be aon.
nen, A rere pone ae ite, a dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by us Order dated 26.10.2009, 4.6 The Applicant subsits that apart from HRRC. ICMR also undertakes another project by. name Integrated Disease Veetor Contral (DVC). Under the said Ive project, ICMR runs National Institutes of Malaria Research. [4 écupleivtiss af such. IDVC Project employed in National Institute of Malaria Research fled OA No. 1105/2009 before Madras Bench of the Tribunal far or rrrrernnirmrnai regularization of theit services on par with the project staff of URRC, The said OA came to be allowed by Madras Bench vide its judgment and order dated 26.08.2016 direc sting ICMR to treat ihe claim of the applicant therein on part with project staff of HRC. The said judgment of Madras Bench af the Tribunal was challenged by ICMR before the Hon*ble Madras High Court, a which was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition of ICMR by Hs jedgment dated 19.05.2012. The applicant submits that # is pertinent te note that in the said judgment and order dated 19.03.2012, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has considered and distinguished the Indement of the Hon'ble Sapreme Court in the case OF ICMR. Vs. K. Raj Laxshmi (2007) 2 SCC 332, The ICMR filed SLP against the said judgment of the Mon'ble Madras High cea ap A, US hy, ee decided Contempt Petition of 6 Project E QACNGAIT of 2S + Corot which came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 10.09.2012. S.7 'The ayplicant fy mee Te Eons ITEC VES of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the reapondent No. 2 has framed a Scheme viz. HRAC Project Staff (Absorp On and Grant of Temporary Status) Scheme 2010 vide letter dated LLOS.2011. * The said Scheme has come inte effect fram OL O7 2014, The said Scheme as applicable to the project staf? engaged an 3ST HREC aN. cs Centers funded by ICME who have put in more than tes years of . Vey aervics as on OL.O7.2010. Under the said Scheme, all the eligible HREC staff. are to be absorbed against 3056 of the pasts Hkely to be created in the Auture. Pending absorption, the HRRC stalf as an OLO7 2010 are to be granted status of an employee with fomporary status. In pursuance to the Regularization Scheme framed by the IOMR. the ICME has regularized the services of several HRRC stall. Copies of regularization arders in respect of Project Staff of Baroda and Chennai ars annexed in the OA and By marsed as rnexure A-}]. By. the seid orders, services aw' the x Project StalY have been regularized from the dates of their initial TR a bon rat my pe og €% oa appointments. Recently, Emakwiam Bench of this Tribunal Ea mploy ees oF NERC, SAT Hospital, Medical College, Usravananthapuram by its order dated 19.06.2014 in case of Dr Soumini C.V. and V. Nirmalskumart. by The Respondent No. 2 was personally present before the Tribunal and Aled Affidavit to the elivct thal 6 posts of regularization of the x said 6 employees were cre ated at ARRC, Trivendram and orders CA Naas? af 201s for their regularization are also issued. The applicant contends that in view of the scheme for reeularization introduced by the ICMR and in view of the aforesaid judgments, she became entitled for regularization her services with effect from the date of her ieial appointment, Le. 07.62.2002. In pursuance to the said scheme framed in the year 2002, list of eligible staff was prepared on 08.06.2011 in which the name of the applicant was also included, however, she docs not have fhe copy of the same. But she does have the seniority Hest of se S prepared by the TOMER which icluded names of all the Scientists (Research Officer) in various HRRC across the country. She submits that the respondents have fauled to implement the said HRRC Project Staff & Absortion and Grant of Temporary Status} Scheme, 2010 on account of which the services of the applicant were not reeulartred. 2,8 She further states that on 10.03.2014, she attained the age of 38 years. Respondent Ne. 4/5 started processing her case fbr retirement wef 31.03.2015 on the ground that the she was attaining the age oF superannuation as per the Government of Maharashtra Rules and Regulations. Gn 05.02.2015, Dr. Rekha Davart, Principal Investigator and Officer Incharee of HRRC _ Centre No. 406 prepared a lyped letter te the effect that as per the Government of Maharashtra Rules, her age of retirement is $8 years, The said typed letter contained « est for following the formalities to be completed for vetitement, The Applicant was not willing to submit such letter because she knew that ICMR employees da not refire on attaining the age af 38 years: The Ber OA Node? af Sons apploant alleges that Dr. Rekha Davar has been harassing het ail throughout her carger and she somehow wanted to ensure thet the nes a ee secede g a applicant goes amt of the HRI " ge $< % 3 a av BA oy & Ay ~ Som Se x The ", respondent Mo. 4/3 wes intending to eaupley same other person of functioning of respondent Nod has always been Very antocratic and rude towards HRRC stall, patients and students. That she had established an atmosphere ofterror in HRC No.406 and about 10 daolors engaged as Research Officer (Medical) at HHEC No406 bave lef the services on account of the freatment given to them by respondent No.3 during past 10 years. She farther alleges that respandent Nod threatened her to sign the letter and retire ont of the HRC as per the State Government reaulations. She submiis ee that re espandent Nad herself has becn warking well bevand the age of superannuation of State Goverment and is believed ta be of 63 years of age. However, respendent Nod treated the stalf of HIRRC at par with narmal employees ofthe state government and caries aun impression that HRRC stal¥ do not have right to continue in sevice beyond 88 years and that is why Respondent 00 ~~ No.S threatened her stating that she must sien the said letter. She submits that apparently respondent No.3 wanted to appoint a.
"person of her choice in place of her which is a reason why she put a note on the said typed proforma letter seeking permission to appoint another person as Research Officer (Non-medieal) in her. She submits that she specifically infbrmed respandent No.5 that as per her knowledge the Project Stalf of other HRC were allowed ig continuc tf they attain the ape af 62 years. However, re Feo eae DAN S87 af Wt respondent No.3 said the applicant that she must immediately for permission to continue her tl 62 years and assured the continuation of services till G2 years, the said letter dated 05.02.2015 would stand automatically withdrawn / cancelled.
2.9 The applicant submits that in this manner she was forced and misled to sign the said letter dated 05.02.2015 and did net put date on the said letter, However, the date can be ascertained from the forwarding remarks of respondent No.3 in her handwriting at the bottom of the said letter. Immediately thereafler the applicant sent letter to Sr. Administrative QMicer, NIRRH with a request to forward the same to DG. ICMR reference to letter dated Q5.02.2015 and stating that she will retire from service as per the rules of ICMR as decided in the case of other praject staff of Cuttack, Orisa, Chennai ete. The said letter of the applicant was forwarded by the UMrector, NIRRG, Mumbai in die [Nrector (Gen), IOMR vide letter dated 16.02.2015.
2.10 'Uhe applicant further states that, in pursuance of her letier forwarded on 16.02.2015, respondent No. 2 sentclarification let tter dated 24.03.2015 clarifying. that the superannuation age of Scientisis / Rese earch Officer of HRRC Project Employees (Gontracttal) is 62 years subject to the mules of host institute. Te ras further stated that if JY. Hospital management had objection, the applicant may continue wil she aitgins the age of 62 years. She submits that, in total disregard to the said letter dated. CA No.297 of 2016 S803. 2018, the respondents Nos. 4/5 issued letter dated 31.03.2015 stating that as per the provisions of Maharashtra Civil services (Pension) Rules 1983, the Apalicant was relieved from ere ee oe ek rand Ol N. at t ra wate garvicg Wiel SLOQS.20T5, On the same day, the agplirant sent x letter dated 06.04 2015 to respondent No.2 to protest about her releving Wied SLO3.2015 despite clarificaiory letter of ICMR dated 24.03.2015. The Applicant requested for cancellation of relieving order dated 31.03 2015. She referred to past cases in her pons eter where project employees were permifted ta costings oll the age of 50 years. If was stated that the staff engaged in the Fxtra Mural Research Projects finded by ICMR should be subject ta the administrative contral of service rules applicable to them of the ustitite Lc. ICMR. It was further stated that the age of retirement of Scientist oF ICME is 62 vears and of Non-Sclentific Staff is of
6) years ard that shevefoxe insiitiats mumning the Long Term Project vie, NMMB. MCRP. IDVC and JE South, Arcot may allow contractual staff till they attain the age of 62/60 years, as the case imay be. In view of the above, the applican' submits thet action of respondent Nos. 4 and S in pre-maturely retiring her at the age of 38 years was absclutely Megs! and at-initie void, ed Al The Applicant also made representations dated 14.05.2015. 12,07 2018 and 09.09.2015 io the respondents. She aubmirs that she has not received any response to the said letters and is therefore constrained to approach this Tribunal for redreasal of her GA No. 257 of M8
3. In contrast, reply affidavit an behalf of respondent Nos, 2 & 3 has been filed stating that the applicant was appointed as a Research Officer (Nau-Medical) from 01.02.2002 te 31.01.2003, ic. the Principal Investigator, Human Reproduction Researc! at ae ¥ Centre, Obst/Gynaec Department, J. Hospital, Mumbai, which -- comes under the State Government. Therefore, this Origina < femeik 4 Application is required to be transferred to the State Tribunal, The post. of the applicant was purely ad-hoc basis and was paid monthly salary with other admissible allowances as per the nes af LI. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai and she was not regularly recruited under any recruitment rules to rogularize thelr services. Therefore, the applicant was back door entry and has no right for regular appointment. It is respectfully submitted that as per the provisions of Maharashira Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 the applicant has corapleted age of 38 years in March 2019 and has been relieved from the services of respondent No 4.
3. They further state that the applicant is challenging the order dated 31.03.2015 and therefore the present Original Application 1 liable to be rejected being fled beyond perind of limitation. That the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act (RXD, 1860. Jb is engaged in research activities in the feld of medicine. It carries out various research activities throagh various schemes projects. Gne of such project is called "Human Repreduction Research Centre GHIRRC). The said project was carried out in the State of Maharashtra. Department. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, JJ. road Group af Hassitals, Mumbai. For the aforementioned purpase, the al Government grants grani-in-aid on year-to-year basis. Tr is fons the respondent No. 4 being the empowered fo recruit and ta x ¥ hy the Hast Institule Ls. Respondent Nod an the terms and conditions laid down in her appointment order issued by the Respondent No. 4. The staff employed on research schemes will not be the Council's cmplovees but for all purposes be treated as the enmplovees af the Respondent No. 4 and will be subject te the rules and administrative control of the Host Institute and will be appointed in accerdance with normal recraiiment rules and mrocedures af the Respondent No. 4. The scales of pay and. ~ FP oaf the scheme wil be the otisyeay saw ate peeiiagtien allowances ote. anolicable fo same aa nimissible under the miles of the Respondent No. 4. a' "Ye 3.3 "Yhey further submit that the cases before the Madras High court CWP No.25400 to 25495 & 25474 to 25577/2002) had its:
peculiar facts and clreumstanoes which are not analogous to the applicant herein. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was any for 20 individuals wha were party ta the Wilt Petitic ama has not been extended beyand those 20 persans for wham 20 Supemumerary posis have been created Such creation af supermumerary posts cannot be quoted as. precedent and the : s ed fe Ay FE Mant applicant cannot allege that his OS No.29T of BS ce be re Various sta arize of above supernumerary posis. The applicant has to go through ges of the on, rncess af re we Gav gularized on the basis Soe Government ser ent to become fi and mere lmited period and for Heted purpos ss gh.
mulment as per the selection working in a praject which is for a cannot bes employee.
come a passage tp is for § teach and attain the status ofa regular and permanent Government Therefore, the applicant cannat stand on identical footing, as the ather HRRC staff went Court of Madras, * befure the Hon'ble High SA. [tis further submitted that th e oa * npointment does not entitle insitiute ar in this or any other scheme. Hes applicant ta any regular appointment in the regular cadre of the SASOR.23
3.5 say be terminated at any me without any prior nofice and without assigning an Respondent no and 3 have relied on the ratio of the madgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court n TOMR V/s K. Rajyalakshimd (2007) 1 SCC os 627 ta stibmit that even though the said case has been distingul Court, which is a ed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and its decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme 8 a single sentence orde upen Tullfedged judgement nf t and which carm prevail } Apex Court passed in 2007 in. the case of ICME Wis K. Rajyalakshimi (supra). In the case of
4 * se a indian Council of Medics! research Versus K. Rajyalexri, 332 t (2007) 2, SCC 332 the Apex Court has allowed the appeal of the Petitioner under Article 142 af the Cor fthe nefitution of India stating MG Teh she A Noe? af & as Oy try ge ed . ne, el a4 "teas, eed " re "hs dag ee & & *¥e. Bcf 'eh ng ox) 4 a Teg RY om toa ng a ae ae a "
ee ne et $i oe Pind "adh a ey foc 5 Se) he.
rors tag, ras) rn as > & % "saat en, peas igre ea ww oes se '.
dee pee ao ma f tear Shay we, epee eng $5 wi ce) es Og ee acd kd ine Pas pad wn gt bo es a 7 Er f, writes Aad et my on ih ea a pa ane tee "ok ca cars Fin, Ted 55 ae rs ioe iA a 'Sexy, :
i ce aos) 3 ee PA ad "4 ay ois og oe ee os "yk Bs Pao bo 5 = ieee! oe. co Be, et, 4 'Me, os a Ae ty at iy hi us Sa tra Ve, ded: ote, ars eet a ao oe vat x po os. Fw hed tn aa eet th Phy see ttettctea Ji SES tig Ps porary Status TY ed VOTE eG uy ated In th .
& dediher & Sik 3 b 2 try of Finance i ture, Min = *:
be tment of Exsend?
ae ' £ n the Dep taleen up wit « ¢ ie the Secberme as mation af ~ x 3 x AY at afler ex tbh i iPVey Damest % st which. he = urpose al Hop ait a the x PORE.
» & 2 aizaron ust ped e dor res tdaes not provid ion. as f iigat "reduced an Nery:
Fi ore gent of Faxpend z ary ws al employee sider:
reads as & ch peed a 2 ce "SPAT att t & nistry of.
NE as ment afin fs i bea xj Co rd Branch OQ ae ak Departraent o E their talus eh 2 er fs i por e "Tene Cat & Research 4x th Dro Heal proposal :
yoE ar'S 'servic h alto?
arizin x & Ng Appray for recal eek = xt TES gt gang s Scheme' OANa. 297 of 2018 employees who are working on four long-term projects of Indian Counsel of Medical Research (ICMR) and have put in 10 or more years® contmucus service under the project cy as os are ney 2 Re Paacecertt Xogae thy Ses a. fhe proposal hes been exer ened | im THIS Department. it has been observed that ICMR had made a submission in the contempt application NoS00/2010 befare Madras High Court that they had evolved a scheme with effect fom G1.07.2010 which is in conformity with the guidelines of DOP&AT, In 4 separate case, Madras s High € Court in its Order dated 19.03. 2012 in WP No 23600/2011, took cognizance of the submission made by ICMR, that ICMR had notified a scheme for the project employees of HRRC for absorption and grant of temporary status and that tt had taken @ decision to apply the said scheme to the project employees of IDVC project and was waiting for the approval of M'o Health & Family Welfare. Hi was in this context that this Departrnent advised vide ID No Sf087/E Coord 12014 dated 17.06.2014 to send a Temporary Status Scheme. However, after examination of the scheme proposed by Mio Health, it has been observed that the scheme is not likely ta serve any usefal purpose in terms of reduced litigation as it does nol provide for regularization of employees, .
a 3, Further, faking inte account the detailed judgment given by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court on 10.04.2006 in Umadevi case, reguiar posts cannot be created just for teguiarization af personnel appainted an contract. Mio HealthICMR are requested te clarify as to why they have ignored the detailed judement of Supreme Court in Umadevi case while defending various court case. As regards the pending cases in courts, M/o HealthWICMR are advised ta defend these cases strongly.
whichever is eartier, If is further sn GA NGay? af 26 4, This issues with the approval of Joint AS&DPA, Department of Health Research (Ministr of Health & Family Welfare) ton ee pron es pee) es.
ie a4 pons "
5
bet te} oa ed oa Ca et ne 5 fae pone paws eed o aes x"
'ew fa faa fe pe ce i eo % ee pevirk 4 ne 4 Cy eee as + a.) They further contended that the order and judgment dated 16.1 220)) Passed in the case of S.P cura is challenged before the High Court, Mumbai by Writ Petition No. 34594 of 2014 and the said Writ Petiiion is pending before the Hon'hle Bombay Nigh court That the offer letters were issued to the RRC project staff at Chennai and Beroda as per the direction given by the Hon'ble Tribunal. The said offers are co-terrinus with the date on which os they attain the age of superannuation or until further orders bmitted that for regularization ty es 4 ia :
ct employees of HRRC, Trivandrorm in order fa implement the order of Hon'ble CAT, Eniakulam bench dated N20, 7.2008. six temporary posts Have been crested an the condition that a lemporary status scheme should be sent to the Department of Expenditure affer concurrence. of TET and meorporating the opinions of DOPAT and Ministry of Law. The issue of Lamporary status was taken up with the De pariment of iexpenditure, Ministry of Finance which had oony eyed that afier x N, < «& 2 Cans DA Mo.Z87 af 1G examination of the Scheme as proposed, the scheme is not Hkely fo serve any Useful purpose in terms of reduced litigation as i€ does not provide for regularizstion of employe 3.8 That as per the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1983 every Government servant, other than a_ Class IV servamt, shall retire from service on the afternoon af the last day of the month in which he attains the age of $8 years. The applicant is completing age of SR years in March 2014 and therefore is relieved from her services on 31.03.2015 (afternoon).
3.9 TR is submitted that the age of superannuation of ScienlislResearch officer of HRRC project employees (contractual) is 62 years, subject to mules of the Host Institute and the Host Institate of the applicant, which is run by the State Government, has applied the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. That the ICME has not fixed any policy hixing the age of superannuation af the HRRC project staff amd the respondent No.2? vide its fetter dated 24.03.2015, gave no direction to Respondent Nos.4 and $, but it specifically nichtioned that the age of superammation of the project staff is subject to the rales of the Host Institute.
AQ ibis submitted that the services of the ather research officers - (Medical) at HRRC in KEM Hospital are continued as per the provisions of the hast institute. 3.11 They point out to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others, 2006, SCC ~ a &.
Aa, where Howas beld that "a temporary e- SUNOVEE ae eto es ¥ Boas fe x i SN y COMM! GUA fo OS Pes POMEL OS fle EXIM) ampoiniment, meredys feng eis ve enyalayes ar casual is continued for tine beyond kis terms of Ais er faehes as cee Beenryse tee eerie Sf veyed odes ow wad not de entitled to be absorbed in reeular service, F ariginal ade by following due proeess oF Ee on! try ae sng ee one me tog Fes ™ i $ oS frp we ty M&% Soe 2 w% he, teh baa et a, wo S, % ee me Paces ra vee sides, ot L308 of the Caustitution of India. are in Hon gy permixsib fen xercise Of hie executive Me get ernment under rt 102 of the Constiagion af ation of wae eet ooph ss aoa Pow 9 + PP ot ingia ff comravention of Me rules. EP Aas been clarified that meres s because of fenporary emplovee of casual waee worker is iene beyond dhe terms of his appointment, he yey - roe . Jos oye RS en pgs awk ss gat gop Nat ge eer eas ree wenn be annitied io be absorbed an regular service or made piyte weet are ergs & re aephereey EBs os per A fhe senate of such continuation if the g f wes mol sade as per the relevant rues"
=~ 3.12 in wiew of fh xe Tnots and circumstances, the Respandent Nos.
Sand 3 submit that the present QA deserves to be dismi * 4, The appheant has also filed rejoinder reiterating th ry anbmissions already made in the OA.
5. We have heard the arguments of both patlies and gone Miwough the materials placed on recard.
spree, con Clits, Let, tS fed OA Wo.gd? al SHG &. _ Appicant who is a contractual employee af the respondent San' cy tse me pal ws C eeks relief of regularization of her services. Applicant also seeks an additional relief that she shenld not be te minated from her services at the age of 38 years, instead she should be allowed ta continues ta work up to the age of 62 years 7 So far as the frst issue is concerned, it would be relevant to ¥ refer fo the appointment letter dated 01.02 2002, issued with spect ta the unplicant, ag ser which ber appointment was for a fixed time period on contractual basis.
fhe appointment letter, which is annexed in the pleadings as Annexure R-1 reads as under:-
"smi. SUSIL LATA is hereby appointed as Research Officer (Non-Medical) in Numan Reproduction Research Centre from i" Pebraa ary 2002 to 31° Isnvary 2003; thereafier renewable on year to year basis. You will be paid monthiy salary in ihe cales of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 avith ather adinis sible allowanee as per the rules af J. y Group of Hospitais, Mumbai. Please nete that TAJDA will act be given for joining first appointment and this post is purely on adhoc basis for the purpose of ICMR Project viz. "Clinical trial with ance a month combined injectable contraceptive TLamelle through cafeteria approach", You will werk trom §.36 am to 4.30 mn. in the lepartment and also as and when required g 20 on official tour as per the project requirements. Your servines are Hable te be terminated if the wark js not found ta be Satis Stactary. 23 OA No ey ef 2016 Yon will have to. gi ve one manth notice i she x desire to leave the job' aa & Dealing with the first issue, if would be relevant fn note that far a particular project only. She was continued for a number of years but for cach year sanction had to be sought for continuation "
~ ot the project and fis employees. No semblance of permanency tan be seerar read into this, 8, The Hon'ble Supreme. Court in various cases Reid that contesctual employees cannot he resnlarized because this will amount fa perpetrating fraud on these candidates wha did not apely thinking that the posts are not permanent posis, The "ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under OG) Offelal Liquidater Vs. Dayanand & (thers (2008) iO SCC 1G) National Fertilizers Lid. and Others Vs. Servir gx Singh (2006) 9 SCO 493. Gi) Kendriva Vidyalaya Sangathan kt and Others Vs. L.V. Subramanyeswara and Another (2007) § BCC 326. Gv} State of Girissa and Amether Va. Mamata Mohanty 011) } 3 SOC ASS, id We compl ely agree with the arguments trged on behalf that contractual employees cannot claim sdondie ati of ther services aml confirmation of servings in view of the ratios of dre four fudsments of the Nomble Supreme Court referred to above and relevant paras laying down the ratio af which four fxlements, alone with the ratio of the Constitution Rerich of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of e ted Pod OA No.297 of BOTS Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadeyi and Others 2006 (4) SCC 1, ti. it is not and cannot be disputed thet the apslicant was selected and appointed only for contractual terms, Once that is 80, such persons cannot seek regularization ta the posts as held in 'anious judgments of the Supreme Court. That 3 respondents themselves came to this conclusion and in the year 2615 {quoted above) decided to discantinue with the scheme fo grant t femporary 2 Status as if Was not Ukely to result in regularization. This heing their administrative decision cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal as the respondents know what is best to tun the administration, With respect to the relief granted to others similarly situated, ii would be pertinent to note that they were regularized only on the directions of the court and before the policy decision quoted above. Onee the respondents have applied their mind and taken a decision not to cantinue with the scheme for grant of temporary status scheme, it would be bad in law to issue direction for regularization.
12. The second prayer of the applicant is that she should be allowed to continue till she reaches the age of 62 years, However, this relief cannot he granted today as she has already reached the age of G2 when the matter came up for argument. In such a situation, this relief cannot be granted and is infructuous due to efflux of time, fh ws fs ae a.
foe OF 2 eo 4 6 fea ia 3 Te 4 ae 8 . a fee ;
os en o § 4B "3 AS Bi Avon esto b SEVisi arhies ip me to oh fhe * he .
heed pm, ted wat BS ' 4 4, te a esc} ha 3 ie o4 2 vied EX'S) ony * cot ta "
cael 4 eg _ = ns + i We rt gh ;
uo "at eo biicas eek WA ar 5 dant a 5 tamed, rene! iShrs b:
Member {A}