Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Jasmer Singh S/O Sh. Bhagat Singh vs Union Territory on 18 December, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.957-CH - of 2012
Chandigarh, this the 18th day of December, 2012
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER(A)
1. Jasmer Singh S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh, working as Workshop Instructor (Carpentry Shop)
2. Ansar Khan S/o Sh. Izhar Khan, working as Workshop Instructor (Turning Shop)
3. Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh, working as Workshop Instructor (Smithy/Forging Shop)
4. Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Niranjan Singh, working as Workshop Instructor (Machine Shop)
5. Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, working as Workshop Instructor (Electrical Shop)
6. Hardeep Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Sagar, working as Workshop Instructor (Foundary Shop)
(All working in Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Diploma Wing, Sector 26, Chandigarh).
APPLICANTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI R.K. SHARMA
VERSUS
1. Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Administrator.
2. Secretary, Technical Education, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director, Technical Education, U.T. Chandigarh.
4. Head of Diploma Wing, Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SH. VIVEK ARORA
ORDER (Oral)
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
1. Short reply presented on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. A copy thereof has been forwarded to the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not wish to file a rejoinder particularly in view of the fact that he would raise a plea that the different facets of reliefs applied for in this O.A. are covered by the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 33/CH/2011 ( Vandana Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 31.3.2011.
3. Heard.
4. The applicants herein have applied for the grant of reliefs which are extracted hereunder:-
(i) Directions may be issued to the respondents not to put break in the appointment of the applicants on completion of every semester and not to replace the applicants by contractual appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on regular basis or till the need is there and to pay salary for vacations.
(ii) Declaration may also be issued to the effect that the conditions of the appointment of the applicants on fixed term and fixed salary are illegal to be quashed to the extent these restrict the period of their appointment one semester and re-engage them after putting break, and that they are entitled to continue in service till the posts are filled in on regular basis/till need is there and they are entitled to minimum of the pay scale plus D.A. as revised from time to time, at par with regular staff.
(iii) Respondents be directed to pay the applicants minimum of the pay scale of the post of Workshop Instructor in the pay band of Rs. 10300-34800 + G.P. Rs. 3600/- plus dearness allowances as revised from time to time with effect from their initial date of appointment minus the consolidated salary already paid to them including for the period of artificial breaks.
5. In so far as the claimed relief at item no. (i) is concerned, there is a precise averment in the course of the corresponding para of the short reply (para 3 thereof) that there is no move to replace the contractual employees by another set of employees of the same character (the factual position is that these contractual appointees are not being replaced by another set of contractual employees. No contractual staff has ever been replaced in the manner being suggested.)
6. In so far as relief at item no. (ii) is concerned, it is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 33/CH/2011 ( Vandana Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 31.3.2011. Further more, the respondents have averred, in the course of para 3 of the reply, that the pay of these contractual employees has been increased from time to time by including the element of DA as applicable.
7. In so far as non-grant of wages for the break period is concerned, it was invalidated in Vandana Jains case (Supra).
8. For facility of reference, we would extract hereunder in the relevant observations made by us while disposing of Vandana Jains case:-
i) The applicants shall not be replaced by contractual employees an they shall continue in service till the posts are filled up on regular basis;
ii) The official respondents are directed to prepare a combined (subjectwise) seniority list of contractual lecturers an they shall be further duty-found to follow the principle of First come, last go in the matter of engagement of laid off lecturers and also the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Krishan Kumars case and Santosh Maliks case (Supra). They yearly intake of the contractual lecturers shall, obviously, be need-based;
iii) The clauses, in the terms & conditions of the appointment letters issued to the applicants restricting the appointment to a period of eight months and also denying the salary for the vacation period to them, are held to be unconstitutional and are quashed; and
iv) In view of the categorical law laid down by the learned Coordinate Bench in Krishan Kumar Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Others (supra) (wherein appropriate sustenance was drawn from the view obtained by the Apex Court in Rattan Lal & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Another (Supra), and also a Division Bench ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana: 2002 (3) RSJ (43) ), all the contractual lecturers shall be entitled to minimum of the pay scale of the post, with Dearness Allowance, as admissible from time to time and also the maternity leave to the extent indicated in that judgment (Krishan Kumars case). The benefit of maternity leave would be available to a female contractual employee, with less than two surviving children. The duration thereof would be the same as has been recommended by the VIth Central Pay Commission.
9. It would be evident from a perusal of the extraction in the preceding para that the relief claimed by the applicants herein is in entirely squarely covered by the decision rendered in Vandana Jain case (Supra). It is even not an averment on behalf of the respondents that any part of the relief under the aforesaid items has been stayed either in judicial review challenge or in an SLP by the Honble Apex Court. The respondents have indeed gone in for a judicial review challenge against Vandana Jains case, but the stay order granted therein is restricted to the direction qua the preparation of the (subjectwise) common seniority list of contractual employees. No other part of the direction has been stayed in the judicial review challenge aforementioned.
10. It being, thus, apparent that all the facets of relief claimed by the applicants herein are squarely covered by the decision rendered in Vandana Jains case, we would allow the O.A. in terms of the decision rendered therein.
11. The O.A. shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER(J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) Dated: 18.12.2012 `SK 1 (OA No.957/CH/2012)