Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mrs. Sunita Verma Wife Of Shri Jatinder ... vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH. O.A.No.250/CH/2013 & Date of Decision : 11.03.2014 MAs No.336/13, 060/00152, Reserved on 07.03.2014 00192, 00244 & 00318/2014 CORAM: HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HONBLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs. Sunita Verma wife of Shri Jatinder Kumar Verma, aged about 38 years, working as Instructor (Hindi Language) in Stenography Hindi on contract basis at Government Industrial Training Institute for Women, Sector 11, Chandigarh, resident of House No.1411, Sector 20/B, Chandigarh. Applicant Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary to Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Technical Education, New Delhi. 2. Union Territory, Chandigarh though its Advisor to Worthy Administrator, U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh. 3. Secretary, Technical Education, UT Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh. 4. Director, Technical Education, U.T. Chandigarh. 5. Principal, Government ITI for Women, Sector 11, Chandigarh. . Respondents Present: Mr. Amar Vivek, counsel for the applicant Mr. Vinay Gupta, counsel for the respondents O R D E R
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
8 (i) directions be issued setting aside and quashing those terms in Order (Annexure A-1) dated 19.10.2012 whereby the applicant has been engaged on contractual basis and has been engaged on consolidated fixed contractual amount and further, the service of the applicant has been engaged till 29.03.2013.
(ii) directions be issued to the effect that the applicant is entitled to salary for the period of notional breaks right from the initial date of her engagement w.e.f. 03.09.2007 till date for which, the respondents have arbitrarily denied the salary for the period of notional breaks caused by them for reasons totally beyond the control of the applicants.
(iii) directions be issued to the respondents that in view of the repeated pronouncements of various judgments by this Honble Tribunal, the services of the applicant be regularized.
2. Averment has been made in the OA that the applicant was interviewed for the post of Hindi Language Instructor regarding which advertisement was issued on 17.08.2007 and she was offered the appointment vide order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure A-4). Although, the advertisement stated that the candidates would be selected on contractual basis or till regular recruitments are made, yet for reasons best known to the respondents, the applicant was offered consolidated salary and contractual engagement for one year. The applicant joined the services of the respondent Institute as Instructor (Hindi Language) in Hindi Stenography in Government I.T.I. for Women, Sector 11, Chandigarh and thereafter worked for periods ranging between three months to one year with some break periods.
3. Interim relief was sought as follows:-
a) The services of the applicant as Instructor (Hindi Language) be not terminated or be not replaced with any other regularly selected person.
b) One post of Instructor (Hindi Language) Hindi Stenography be kept reserved for the applicant.
When the matter was taken up for consideration on 25.03.2013 it was directed that the applicants services may not be terminated till the next date of hearing and this position continues till date.
4. In the grounds for relief, it has been stated as follows:-
i) The respondents are duty bound to follow the mandate declared by this Tribunal in various judgments including in the judgment of Ms. Vandana Jain, whereby repeatedly directions have been issued to prepare a Scheme to regularize the services of contractual employees and to engage them continuously in accordance with law. Not only this, the applicant has completed more than 5 years regular satisfactory service with the respondents.
ii) The action of the respondents is totally unconscionable, illegal and unconstitutional in offering contractual appointment to the applicant inspite of the applicant serving the respondents for the last more than 5 years. Once, the respondents have publicly advertised the post in question and have interviewed the applicant along with several other candidates and the selection of the applicant has been made through a duly constituted Selection Committee, there is no reason whatsoever to deny the relief prayed for by striking down the illegal and arbitrary conditions in the engagement letter of the applicant.
iii) The applicant has already completed the age of 38 years and as such, she has been rendered overage for any fresh selection by the respondents. Meaning thereby, the applicant would be ineligible for competing on regular basis hereinafter against any vacancy freshly advertised by the respondents because in the original advertisement, the respondents had advertised the eligibility age between 18 to 35 years.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the applicant was appointed as Instructor (Hindi Language) on contract basis for a fixed term of one year vide appointment letter dated 03.09.2007 on consolidated salary of Rs.10,400 per month and this appointment was duly accepted by the applicant. The applicant was thereafter appointed on contract basis time and again and the last appointment made on 19.10.2012 on consolidated salary of Rs.24,100 per month was valid w.e.f. 22.10.2012 to 29.03.2013.
6. It has further been stated that the relief of regularizing her services as claimed by the applicant is not tenable as there is no requirement of Instructor (Hindi Language) as per revised semester wise syllabus of Stenography Hindi trade for the year 2013 onwards as has been informed by the DGE&T, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide letter No.DGE&T-19(4)2011-CD-Pt dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure R-1) and also the respondents are not regularizing any other person on the said post, as such the applicant cannot claim regularization under any provisions of law. Moreover, the fact of discontinuation of Hindi Language Instructor as per revised semester wise syllabus of Stenography Hindi trade is clearly evident in the enclosed programme for All India Trade Test of Craftsmen Training Scheme for Engineering and Non-engineering trades to be held February, 2014 wherein there is no mention of Stenography Hindi Language Examination (Annexure R-2). However, the other benefits as had been granted to similarly situated contract employees had also been extended to the applicant.
7. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the applicant, wherein it has been stated that as per the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, letter No.DGE&T-19(4)2011-CD-Pt dated 23.09.2013, there was no mention in the revised semester wise syllabus that Hindi Language Instructors are no more required for teaching students of Hindi Stenography. In fact the syllabus for Hindi Language i.e. Hindi Bhasa and Karlaya Paditi are existing in both semesters of the Revised Syllabus under Theory and Practical and the same is appended as Annexure A-12. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment (D.G.E.&T), New Delhis letter No.DGET-2(2)2007-CD, dated 25.02.2008, wherein the syllabus for Language Hindi (COGNATE) has been made known and the post of Language Instructor for Hindi Stenography trade has also been revealed under the title Staff at Sl.No.2 i.e. Anudheshak Bhasa. On the basis of this syllabi, the Hindi Stenography Trade is being carried out till date. A revised syllabi was sent to all Industrial Training Institutes by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment (D.G.E&T), New Delhi vide their letter No.DGET-2/3/2013-CD, dated 18.02.2013. The applicant after thorough examination of the same found that this revised syllabus accidentally omitted COGNATE (Hindi Language) syllabus, due to a sheer misprint having taken place, whereby in column no.2 of General Information, there is no reference of Hindi Language Instructor. Thereafter the applicant raised the issue of misprint in the syllabus of Hindi Stenography with the Central Staff Training & Research Institute / DGET by e-mail requesting them to include the left out portions / misprints in Hindi Stenography syllabus and further the Language Instructor (Hindi) i.e. Anudesak Bhasa be added as per the guidelines and norms issued by Quality Council of India. After raising of this issue of misprint in the syllabus before the respondent authorities, the syllabus had been revised again in September, 2013 in which Hindi Language syllabus has been added, however only in the first semester and not in the second semester and this is also evident from the content of the official website i.e. www.dget.nic.in. Besides, the first and second semester syllabus for Karlaya Paditi stands which is being taught at present by the language instructor like the applicant (Annexure A-15).
8. Additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent vide MA No.060/00152/2014 covering the same issues.
9. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 31.01.2014, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was no work appointment for the applicant and she was continuing to attend the I.T.I. only due to the interim order dated 25.03.2013. As such the respondents were requested to file an affidavit in this regard to confirm the position from the Head of the Institution, which has been filed on 06.02.2014 by the Director, Technical Education, U.T. Chandigarh (respondent no.4) stating that Smt. Sunita Verma, who was appointed as Hindi Language Instructor on contract basis w.e.f. 03.09.2007 has continued as contractual Hindi Language Instructor on fresh appointment issued from time to time with small interval / breaks and her last appointment was valid upto 29.03.2013. However, she filed the OA No.250/CH/2013 before this Tribunal and vide Interim Order dated 25.03.2013, her services were not dispensed with and no further fresh contractual appointment was issued beyond 29.03.2013. As per the record, there is no mention of the post of Hindi Language Instructor in the revised and finalized Semester-wise syllabus of Stenography Hindi Trade, as has been informed by the D.G.E&T, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its letter No.DGE&T-19(4)-2011-CD-Pt, dated 23.09.2013. Accordingly, there is no need to extend the appointment or issue fresh appointment of Smt. Sunita Verma, Hindi Language Instructor in the respondent Institute and the services of Smt. Sunita Verma, Hindi Language Instructor on contract basis, are no longer required by respondent no.4. Smt. Sunita Verma, is permitted to mark attendance in the Attendance Register with respondent no.5 without any specific instructions / job to perform and she is visiting the Institute of respondent no.5 and voluntarily taking classes of the concerned trade without any resistance by respondent no.5, due to the Interim Order dated 25.03.2013 passed by this Tribunal in her favour.
10. MA No.060/00192/2014 was filed on behalf of the applicant enclosing the prospectus of I.T.I. for Women, Sector 11, Chandigarh, for the Session 2013-2014 and details of the students enrolled for Hindi Stenography and the record regarding the work actually done by her.
11. MA No.060/00318/2014 was filed for placing on record Exam paper set by DGET taught by the petitioner and representation to the Director, Technical General Employment and Training, for correction of misprint forwarded by Secretary, Technical Education.
12. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the points and issues taken in the OA and stated that the applicant had been unfairly treated by giving her only short extensions of her appointment on contractual basis as Instructor (Hindi Language) coupled with artificial breaks in service. He further stated that although the new syllabus for the I.T.I. was released in February, 2013 and Hindi Bhasa had been deleted from the same as per the circular of September, 2013 and the services of Instructor (Hindi Language) were very much required in the I.T.I. and the respondents had no right to discontinue the services of the applicant. He also drew attention to the documents placed at pages 72, 74, 75, 82, 100 and 201-232 of the paper book to buttress his claim in this regard. Further, learned counsel stated that the applicant had filed OA No.060/00067/2014, decided on 24.01.2014, which was regarding the representation of the applicant dated 20.12.2013 submitted to the Director, Technical Education, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh praying to review / amend the syllabus for Hindi Stenography / Language COGNATE amended in 2013 on the pattern of old syllabus published in 2008 and to add the post of Language Instructor (Hindi) i.e. Anudheshak Bhasa as per the guidelines and norms issued by Quality Council of India and on the pattern of old syllabus published in 2008. As per order dated 24.01.2014, the competent authority was directed to take a final view on the representation of the applicant in accordance with the law within a period of two months.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the applicant having accepted her contractual appointment as Instructor (Hindi Language) as per her appointment letter dated 03.09.2007 could not challenge the terms and conditions as prescribed in this letter. Moreover, as directed by the Bench vide its order dated 31.01.2014 affidavit of Director, Technical Education had been placed on record. This clearly showed that there was no mention of the post of Hindi Language Instructor in the revised and finalized semester wise syllabus of Stenography Hindi trade as informed by the DGE&T vide letter dated 23.09.2013. Hence there was no need to extend the appointment or issue fresh appointment to the applicant Ms. Sunita Verma and her services were no longer required by the respondents.
14. Learned counsel also pressed for vacation of the interim order dated 25.03.2013 that the applicant not be terminated from service as the services of the applicant were no longer required by the respondent Institute. Learned counsel also drew attention to the prayer clause in the OA whereby the applicant was seeking salary for the period of notional breaks from the date of her engagement w.e.f. 03.09.2007 till date and regularization of her services as per various judgments of the Tribunal / Courts. Learned counsel for the applicant stressed that since the services of the applicant were no longer required as per the categorical statement made in the affidavit filed by Director, Technical Education U.T.) there was no merit in the claim of the applicant and the same deserved to be rejected.
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and have perused carefully the pleadings of the parties, particularly, the voluminous material that has been placed on record on behalf of the applicant and heard the learned counsels at length. It is evident from the record that the applicant was engaged on contractual basis as Instructor Hindi Language for short periods of time as per the requirement of the respondent Department. Due to change in syllabus as conveyed to the I.T.I.s by Director General, Employment and Training, Govt of India, the respondents have taken the view that there is no requirement of Instructor Hindi Language and hence it was directed not to extend the contractual service of the applicant beyond the date when her last such appointment expired. The applicant on the other hand has tried her best to show from various documents placed on record that the services of Instructor, Hindi Language, are indeed required by the respondents and hence she should be allowed to continue to work as such and her services should in fact be regularized.
16. It is not the role of the Tribunal to examine in detail the syllabus prescribed by the DGE&T for various courses run in the Industrial Training Institutes and Staff required for the same or the duties performed by a particular person working on contractual basis at the I.T.I for Women, Chandigarh. The respondent Administration and particularly the Department of Technical Education are to discharge the responsibility of ensuring that the Crafts courses are run as per the guidelines of the Director General, Employment and Training, issued from time to time, and to do so necessary staff support has to be ensured. In this particular case, the Director, Technical Education has already filed an affidavit stating that as per the revised semester wise syllabus of Stenography Hindi trade as conveyed by DGE&T, Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide letter No.DGE&T-19(4)-2011-CD-Pt, dated 23.09.2013, there was no mention of the post of Hindi Language Instructor and hence the services of the applicant are no longer required by the respondent Institute.
17. So far as the issue of appointments made on contractual basis is concerned, these have been adjudicated in detail through OA No.126/CH/2002 titled Krishan Kumar & Ors Vs. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors., decided on 02.12.2002 and OA No.33/CH/2011 titled Ms. Vandana Jain & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., decided on 31.01.2011 wherein it has been directed that one contractual appointee is not to be replaced by another. In the present case no attempt is being made by the respondents to appoint another person in place of the applicant Ms. Sunita Verma and her services are sought to be dispensed with on the ground that as per the revised syllabus for Hindi Stenography trade, there is no provision for Hindi Language Instructor and hence the services of the applicant are not required. With their being no requirement of the post of Hindi Language Instructor, the claim of the applicant for regularization as such is also without merit. In view of the above position, we are of the view that there is no merit in the claim of the applicant for continuation of her services as Hindi Language Instructor and the Interim Order dated 25.03.2013 is vacated. However, if in future the services of Hindi Language Instructor are required by the respondent Institute and the post is to be filled on contractual basis, the claim of the applicant for such appointment shall be accorded due priority.
18. MAs No.336/2013, 060/00152, 00192, 00194, 00244 & 00318/2014 and the present OA are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER.
(DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Place: Chandigarh Dated: 11.03.2014 sv: