Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Pandurangarao vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Its ... on 15 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(4)ALT473
Author: T.N.C. Rangarajan
Bench: T.N.C. Rangarajan
ORDER T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.
1. This writ petition seeks regularisation of the services of the petitioner and for that purpose, a direction to the Department of Space to convey approval to the proposals made by the National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) for sanction of the additional man power strength.
2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner responded to the advertisement dated 8-3-1993 for a temporary post of Technical Assistant-A for a period of one year. He was selected and appointed on 19-6-1993 for this post, the vacancy for which has arisen because of the study leave by the regular incumbent. The petitioner was initially appointed for six months, which was extended by another six months and further, upto 28-2-1994. However, when the regular incumbent returned from leave, because of the need for his services, the petitioner was offered a fresh appointment on contract basis on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 2,300/- per month for a period of one year. On the petitioner expressing his willingness, he was given the contract for a period of six months initially which was extended for a further period of six months until 30-11-1995, when the period expired. In the meanwhile, according to the petitioner, a proposal had been made by NRSA for sanctioning additional man power so that the petitioner's services could be absorbed in a regular vacancy, but there was no response from the Ministry of Space which was the supervising agency for NRSA. The petitioner also stated that he had given up another offer from Geological Survey of India in the hope that he will be regularised here, but two other persons Sri P. Venkat Reddy and S. Srinivas who had been appointed later than him were continued to be employed. He further stated that the services of two other persons Sri Suresh and Sri Jagannadham, have been regularised and in the circumstances, failure to regularise the services of the petitioner, was arbitrary.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by NRSA, it is stated that the services of the petitioner had been only on contract basis and any decision to create a post or regularise the services was wholly within the discretion of the Department of Space, and cannot be questioned. It is stated that the services of Sri Venkat Reddy and Sri Srinivas would expire on 23-12-1995 and 31-3-1996 respectively since they were also on contract basis. With reference to Sri Suresh and Sri Jagannadham, it is stated that they had been appointed earlier in 1992 against regular posts and therefore there was no discrimination in regularising their services. The additional counter-affidavit filed by the respondents stated that if any vacancy arises in future, the case of the petitioner will be considered for absorption according to rules and regulations of NRSA. The Department of Space has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the proposal of NRSA had been turned down and, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous particularly when the contract service of the petitioner had also ended. The NRSA has filed a second additional counter affidavit adopting this counter of the Government of India.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was apparent conflict between the stands taken by the NRSA and the Department of Space inasmuch as while it appeared from the counter of NRSA that the proposal was still pending when the counter was sworn to on 25-1-1996, the counter-affidavit of the Department of Space sworn to on 22-2-1996 states that the proposal of NRSA had been turned down, and he wanted to know when exactly the decision was taken and what is the basis for it. When queried, the learned Counsel for the Department of Space stated that a meeting had been held in November when the matter was thoroughly discussed and the decision was communicated orally. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in case of a Government department, there should be no oral decisions and unless a written communication is produced, it should be taken that no decision rejecting the proposal was taken, I have to accept the version given by the learned Counsel for the department because there is no embargo on the Government communicating decisions orally. Secondly, the petitioner himself appears to be aware of the fact that in November, 1995 there was a meeting where the matter was discussed and a decision taken, since he has stated so in para 10 of his affidavit. Thirdly, even if there was no decision earlier, the statement in the counter-affidavit has to be accepted as the decision. Therefore, the matter, as it stands now, is that the Department of Space has not approved the proposal for creating additional posts in which the services of the petitioner, could be absorbed.
5. It is no doubt true that there will be considerable hardship to employees who are employed on contract basis for a long time when they are told that they are being retrenched without much ado. The Supreme Court had to consider this situation in Union of India V. D.K. Saxena, where while upholding the retrenchment on the basis of the determination of the contract on the expiry of the period of contract, it was stated that the department should consider his case for appointment in regular vacancies that may arise subsequently. Similarly, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary, it was held that the principle of 'last come-first go' will apply even for temporary employees. In the present case, two persons whose services were regularised, happen to be appointed earlier to the petitioner. The two other persons stated to be still working after the termination of the petitioner's services, were on contracts which end after the expiry of the petitioner's contract. Applying the principle of 'last come-first go', all that can be said is that whenever the next vacancy arises, the petitioner's case will be considered before the cases of Sri Venkat Reddy and Sri Srinivas. Since the NRSA itself has stated that they will consider the appointment of the petitioner in a regular vacancy whenever it arises I can only record that assurance and close the writ petition. No costs.