Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Prashant Jagannath More vs M/O Communications on 13 June, 2019
:
.
x 5
&
i GA Noed53/2013 -
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE YTRIBUNAL,
MOMBAT BENCH, MUMBAT
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.353 of 2013
Dated this Thrusday, the 13° day of dune, 2019
CORAM : DR. BHAGWAN SAHAI, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)
R.N.SINGH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
h. Prashant More, S/o Jagannath More,
Flat No,202, Kearinath Towers,
Piot No.B-9, Sector --3, Belpada,
Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.
Working as Technical Officer at C-DAC Mumbai.
2. . Prakash Pimpale, S/o Balaji Pimpale,
Flat No.302, Bapuji Sadan, Sector 3, Belpada,
Kharehar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.
Working as Technical Officer at C-DAC Mumbai.
Mr. Anupam Saxens,
2135/4, Chha -- Chhi Ruan Nr. RGM.
Lucknow 226 003, Flat No.302, A- Wing,
Jay Aashiyana Building, LC. Colony, Boriwali West,
Murbai 400 103.
Working as Technical Officer at C-DAC Mumbai.
Nad
4. Deleted.
&, Mr. Uttarn Kumawat Ram Bhavan,
bee Harshaiji Ka Katla, Mohalla Kumawat Town,
. \ Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan 322 021,
Working as Technical Officer at C-DAC Mumbai,
6 Deleted. ... Applicants
{By Advocate Shri Rishi Ashok)
VERSUS
i. Union of India,
(Represented by Secretary te the Government of India),
Ministry of Communication & Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003.
bs
Director General
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC),
University of Pane Canyjus Ganeshkhind,
Pune 411007,
ho
OA No.353/2013
Executive Director,
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC),
Gubnohar Cross Road No.9, Fubra,
Muntbai 400 049, 2... Raspondents
(By Advocate Shri A.M, Sethna)
tes
ORAL ORDER
Per : R.N.Singh, Member {Judicial} The four applicants have approached. this Tribunal by this OA, filed under Section 19. of. the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
"8it} Call for recards & proceedings leading to Office Afvemorandum 13/12 (ef C-DAC: Gorp-HRD: 2012) dated 28.08, 2012; read with Office Memorandum 16/12 (ref: C- DAC» Corp-HRD: 2012) dated 30,08 2012; read with Office Memorandunt 18/12 fre C-DAC- Carp-HRD: 2012) dated O90 {0.2012; read with Office Memorandum 19/12 fref C- DAC? Corp-HRD: 2012} dated 09.10.2012 marked and annexed herein as Annexure Al; and after going through the merits of the case the han'ble Court be pleased fo quash and aside Armexure Al as being arhitrary, tlegal and viclative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
8D. Call for the records leading te Letter No.C- DACKHRDGBC-Rew20l2 dated Pebracey 07, 2013 to First Applicant; Letter No.C-DACHRDYOBC- Rew/201 2 dated Febr wary O7, 2013 to "See cond dpplicant; Leiter No.C- DACVHRIYGEC-Rew 202 dated February Q7, 2013 ta Third Applicant; Letter No.C-DAC/HRD/GBC-Rev012 dated February 07, 23 to Fourth Applicant; Letter No.C- DACIARDIGEC-Rew 2012 dated February 07, 2013 to Fifth Applicant; Letter Na, C-DA C/HRD/GBC-Rew/2012 dated G7, 2013 to Sixth Applicant marked and annexed herein as Annexure A2 and after examining the merit be pleased ta quash and set aside Anmexure AZ as bei ing arbitrary, illegal and violative af byelaws af Society as well as Articles 1 4 £6, 19 and 2) of the Constitution.
SID. Be pleased fo direct the respondents fo adhere to the Bye-Laws avd implement the Bye-Laws properly.
8@¥). The Hon'ble Court be pleased to protect. the 3 DANG 3532013 employment of the applicants and the respondents be directed not to fenninate their services without following the due process of law and without ihe permission of the Hon'ble Cour 4 &(V}. Be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the entployment of the applicants as per the law.
&(VD). Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and appropriate to the facts of the case."
3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that during the pendency of the OA, the respondents have considered the matter and have issued office Memorandum-20/18 Wo vHRD/R/O2 dated 22.06.2018 {Annex A-#8, page 435} and in view thereof the prayers of the applicanty at paragraph No.8(} and {TI} have become infructuous. The learned counsel for the applicants very fairly admits the same.
4, With regard to the prayer made in paragraph Na.8 (IIT) of the applicant, the isearned unsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are always ready and willing te adhere to the @xtent bye-laws. Accordingly, this prayer of the apolicant also stands satisfied,
5. With regard to the applicants! prayer for protection of their employment and not to be terminated without following due process of law is concerned, there cannot be any dispute and the same is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and states 4 OANG353/2013 that whenever termination of the employment of ct he apolicants will be required to be considered 4 and the same shall be considered only after following the due procedure of law and not atherwise.
&. fo all such submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicanyf is having no objection and he accepts them. Thus, inthe aforesaid OA, the a only aspect which requires to be looked into and x adjudicated is the prayer of the applicant at paragraph No.€(V} of the OA for direction to respondents to regularize their employment under the respondents as per the law.
7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicants invites cur attention to the provision of 18.1,.5.1 or 19.1.5.2 of the bye-laws of the respondents which provides as under :~ "EELS, Mizration from Contraciual pasitien fo Regular position :
S452 Srech contractual employees (Employees recruited an pay scale and nat an vonsalidated salary) who have completed Bro or more contracival terms, covering a minimum of te consecutive years, shall be considered for a reeular appointment, provided, hawever no such appointment shall extend beyond the age of superannuation. Such regularization shall be based on merif and carried out through a duly canstifuved conunittee for this purpose and the candidates meeting the provisions af Recruliment Rudes of C-DAC I8.2.5.2. Society may consider cases of ML RETITCTII IR 3 OA No SSH2G13 meritoriaus contractual employees (employees recruited an pay scale and not on consolidated salary) whe have completed six years of service wi the Society for review for regular appointment, pravided, however mo such appointment shall extend beyond the age of superannnuction. " .
a. On the basis of such provision of Bye-~ laws, the learned counsel for the applicants submit that it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider regularization of the applicants. However, till date they have not. done the same. However, on going through the representations t BO dated 26.02.2013 {Annex A-10 collectively} of the applicants, we Find that in it they have not even prayed for. their regularization and in fact they have requested for renew of their contractual amployment for next five years. a Te ob Re 9, In the aforesaid facts circumstances, the learned counsel for the applicants under instructions of the applicants in Court seeks liberty te make a comprehensive representation to the Competent Authority under the respondents for regularization of their services in accordance with law.
20. In view of the aforesaid, the OA is dispased of keeping in view the statemen made and neted herein-above and liberty is granted to the applicants to make & comprehensive representation to the Competent Authority under 6 , OA No S33fA0i3 the pespondents for regularization of their services in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified. copy of this order.
11. In case such representation LS received from the applicants within the time stipulated above, the respondents are directed to consider the same keeping in view the rules, bye~laws. and © -
applicable laws by "passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.
(RN Singh) . (Dr. Bhagwan Sahai} Member (Tusdicial) Member (Administrative) king* .
cy ee