Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
P C Kaushik vs Northern Railway on 24 September, 2024
1
(C-5, item-55) O.A. No. 2109/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.2109/2022
Reserved on: 09.09.2024
Pronounced on: 24.09.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
P. C. Kaushik aged about 61 years,
Retd. Chief Finger Print Examiner Group B,
FA&CAO's Office, Northern Railway
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
Resident of H. No. K-I-90, Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP-201002.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. H. P. Chakravorti)
Versus
1. Union of India thro'
The General Manager,
Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer,
Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Anupama Bansal)
2
(C-5, item-55) O.A. No. 2109/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the instant OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i. To allow the OA and direct the respondents to release the pay/salary of the petitioner for the period of 01.06.2020 to 31.12.2020 with interest @24% p.a. yearly compounded; and ii. To pass any other or further order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper as per facts and circumstances of the case besides cost of the to the tune of Rs.55,000/-."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant, who retired from the post of Chief Finger Print Examiner, was re- engaged as Consultant (Fingerprint Expert) for a period of six months on 29.05.2019. Thereafter, his re-engagement was extended for another period of six months on the said post. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was paid regularly for the said period, however, the bone of contention of his argument is that for the period w.e.f. 01.06.2020 to 31.12.2020, despite performing duties, the applicant has not been paid any salary.
3
(C-5, item-55) O.A. No. 2109/2022 2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant had drawn attention to Annexure A3 (colly) which highlights the nature of duties performed by the applicant during the period in question, i.e., w.e.f. 01.06.2020 to 31.12.2020. He further submitted that a representation has also been preferred by the applicant ventilating his grievances therein. However, no action has been taken so far on the same by the respondents.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, highlighting the following paras:-
"4.3 & 4.4 That the averments of corresponding para are matter of record to the extent that Sh. P.C. Kaushik, . Ex. Chief Finger Print Examiner was re-engaged after his retirement against the vacant post of FPE/ Accounts in the office of PFA/NR/HQ/BH, NDLS on monthly remuneration basis for a period of six months as per extant ru1es vide Dy. CAO/G's letter No. 2018/ Adm- II/C/5/ AA/Re-engagement dated 15.05:2019. He reported in the office on 28.05.2019 and thereafter S.O.O No. NG - 74 dated '29.05.2019 was issued for posing of retired staff including Sh. P.C Kaushik on Non-Sensitive seats and Sh. P.C Kaushik was posted in Pension Section under. the. control· of AFA/Pension/HQ in terms of GM/P letter No. 831- E/0/169/2V/EIV/Pt.I dated 04.05.2018. Copy of letter dated 15.05.2019 is annexed herewith ·as Annexure R-1 and copy of S.O.O No. NG - 74 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2. Thereafter, vide S.O.O No.· NG -195 dated 20.12.2019, Competent Authority reviewed the services of re-engaged staff 4 (C-5, item-55) O.A. No. 2109/2022 including Sh. P.C Kaushik in terms . of GM/P letter No. · 831- E/0/169/2U/EIV/Pt.II dated 02.1220'19 and accorded approval for extension of services up to 29.05.2020. Copy of S.O.O No. NG - 195 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-3. 4.4 Contentions as raised in these paras are wrong and denied. The applicant has already been paid his dues up till 29.05.2020. ·As per office record, there is no order for extension of term of the applicant after 29.05.2020. Furthermore, no Work Certificate/ Absentee statement is available in the records for the period after 29.05.2020. Sh. P.C Kaushik was well aware with the facts that there is no order for extension of term of the applicant after 29.05.2020 and therefore the Railway Administration Could ·not provide - the remuneration for that period. 4.5-4:6 Contentions as raised in these paras are wrong and denied. The applicant has already, been paid his dues up till 29.05.2020. The applicant has not- mentioned the full designation of the controlling authority who has given him the written order to work from home due to pandemic Covid-19. The applicant has just mentioned Dy. FA&CAO in the para. Moreover the applicant was not able to provide any written order of competent authority for engaging him to work from home during COVID-19. Being a Railway Employee for so many years, he is well aware of the fact that he cannot be paid remuneration for such period which is not duly authorized by the competent authority."
4. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.
5. The applicant herein was appointed for a limited period of contract, which came to an end on 29.05.2020. This fact has not been disputed by the applicant.
5
(C-5, item-55) O.A. No. 2109/2022 5.1. After 29.05.2020, the respondents have not renewed the contract of the applicant in writing. Hence, his contract has come to an end by efflux of time.
5.2. There is no variation in the terms and conditions of the expired contract of the applicant. Neither there is any document on record to show that any express permission, in writing of the competent authority, for seeking such renewal was pending consideration. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the services of the applicant got extinguished by efflux of time on the expiry of the contract. No case is made out by the applicant that he had a reasonable expectation that the employer would revert to re-employing him on the terms of his previously expired fixed term contract.
6. Even though we may find that it was reasonably expected that the competent authority amongst the respondents ought to have disposed of the pending representation addressing the claim of the applicant, but for absence of clear documents on record to prima facie establish his case more-so in light of specific averments in 6 (C-5, item-55) O.A. No. 2109/2022 counter affidavit inter-alia to the effect that the applicant has not mentioned the full designation of the controlling authority who has given him the written order to work from home due to pandemic Covid-19. The applicant has just mentioned Dy. FA&CAO. Moreover the applicant was not able to provide any written order of competent authority for engaging him to work from home during COVID-19. Being a Railway Employee for so many years, he is well aware of the fact that he cannot be paid remuneration for such period which is not duly authorized by the competent authority. We have no reasons to disbelieve the same. Accordingly, we refrain from passing any order in favour of the applicant.
7. In view of the above, we dismiss this OA being devoid of merits. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /yaksh/