Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sukhwinder Singh Son Of Late Sh. ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 2 June, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 060/00494/2016
Date of filing: 30.05.2016
Order reserved on: 31.05.2016
Chandigarh, this the 2nd day of June , 2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE SMT. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
Sukhwinder Singh son of late Sh. Trilochan Singh, aged 40 years, R/o H. No. 1421, Kabir Panthi Mohalla, Pinjore, District Panchkula (Haryana).
.APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI K.B. SHARMA PROXY FOR SHRI D.R. SHARMA
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public and Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi.
2. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 10-Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.
3. The Principal Accountant General (Audit), Haryana, Plot No. 5, Sector 33-B, Dakshin Marg, Chandigrh-160047.
.RESPONDENTS
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER(J):-
Applicant Sukhwinder Singh has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, claiming the following relief:
i) That the impugned order dated 13.05.2016 (Annexure A- 1) be quashed and set aside being wholly illegal and arbitrary.
ii) That the respondents be directed to reinstate the applicant w.e.f. 13.05.2016 alongwith consequential benefits as he was getting prior to his termination.
2. Case of the applicant is that his father while working as Auditor with respondents died in harness on 10.6.2009. The applicant made application for appointment on compassionate ground. Vide order dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure A-2), the applicant was appointed as Trainee (Multi Tasking Staff Group-C) (in short, Trainee MTS). The applicant accordingly joined on 03.01.2011. The applicant was under matric. He was allowed Pay Band-IS Rs. 4440-7440 without any grade pay. He was entitled to admissible allowances like dearness allowance, house rent allowance etc. The applicant submitted application dated 01.01.2016 (Annexure A-3) for extension of time to pass matric examination till declaration of result of examination which was to be held in March/April 2016. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not appear in the said examination. The respondents have issued impugned order dated 13.05.2016 (Annexure A-1) terminating the service of the applicant on the ground that he was required to acquire the minimum educational qualification of 10th standard in 5 years from the date of his appointment as per O.M. dated 3.4.2012 (Annexure A-4) and O.M. dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure A-5), but he failed to acquire the same. The applicant has challenged the said termination order on various grounds which would be dealt with hereinafter.
3. We have heard counsel for the applicant on the question of admission of the O.A. and perused the case file.
4. Counsel for the applicant contended that as per paragraph 2 of appointment letter (Annexure A-2), the applicant was required to acquire the educational qualification prescribed for the post of MTS within 2 years from the date of joining as trainee. However, vide paragraph 2 of O.M. dated 3.4.2012 (Annexure A-4), the period for acquiring the minimum educational qualification was prescribed as 5 years. It was also pointed out that as per paragraph 6 B (b) of O.M. dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure A-5), the only effect of not acquiring the minimum educational qualification was that the trainee would continue in the IS pay band Rs. 4440-7440 without any grade pay and would not be entitled to pay band PB-I of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 1800. It was also submitted that it is nowhere mentioned in appointment letter (Annexure A-2) or O.M. dated 3.4.2012 (Annexure A-4) or O.M. dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure A-5) that due to non- acquiring of minimum educational qualification, the trainee would be liable to be terminated. It was submitted that the only effect of non- acquiring the minimum educational qualification is that the applicant would have to continue in pay band IS Rs. 4440-7440 without grade pay and would not have got pay band of Rs. 5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs. 1800/-.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. However, we find no force in the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the applicant. If the only effect of not acquiring the minimum educational qualification within the prescribed period was to be that the applicant would have continued in pay band IS of Rs. 4440-7440 without grade pay and would not have been entitled to pay in Pay Band-I Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 1800, then no period would have been prescribed at all for acquiring the minimum educational qualification. In that event, it would have been specifically stated in the O.Ms that till acquiring of minimum educational qualification, the trainee would continue in pay band IS and would not be entitled to Pay Band- I, without stating any time-limit. However, in appointment letter (Annexure A-2), it was stipulated that the applicant had to acquire minimum educational qualification within 2 years. The period was extended to 5 years by O.M. dated 3.4.2012 (Annexure A-4). However, the applicant admittedly failed to acquire the said minimum educational qualification within the prescribed period of 5 years. Consequently, in view of condition in the appointment letter, his services have been rightly terminated. In this regard, reference may be made to paragraph 17 of O.M. dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure A-5) stipulating that the compassionate appointment can be terminated on the ground of non-compliance of any condition stated in the offer of appointment after providing an opportunity to the appointee by issue of show cause notice. In the instant case, the applicant violated the condition in paragraph 2 of appointment letter (Annexure A-2) because he failed to acquire the minimum educational qualification for the post of MTS within prescribed period. Consequently, his services have been rightly terminated. Condition no. 2 in the appointment letter (Annexure A-2) read with paragraph 17 of O.M. dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure A-5) leads to the conclusion that services of the applicant have been rightly terminated due to non-acquisition of minimum educational qualification for the post. The applicant has violated condition no. 2 of the appointment letter.
6. It is also worth mentioning that the applicant was even granted grace period beyond period of 5 years to acquire the minimum educational qualification. In his application dated 1.1.2016 (Annexure A-3), the applicant has mentioned that vide office order dated 19.8.2015, he has been granted permission to pass matriculation examination to be held in March/April 2016. He completed 5 years service as Trainee MTS on 3.1.2016, but he was granted further grace period to pass the examination which was to be held in March/April 2016. However, he did not even appear in the said examination, what to talk of qualifying the same. Thus even after grant of grace period, the applicant failed to acquire the minimum educational qualification for the post. He has vaguely mentioned that due to unavoidable family circumstances, he could not appear in the said examination. However, there could be no more pressing circumstances for the applicant than to save his job by passing the said examination.
7. The applicant has alleged in the O.A. that individuals like Mrs. Hansa Devi, Mrs. Satya Devi, Mrs. Salochana Devi, Mrs. Nisha etc., who are illiterate, were appointed on compassionate ground and are still continuing on the post of MTS and, therefore, action of the respondents against the applicant is discriminatory. The contention is completely untenable. Concluding paragraph of O.M. dated 3.4.2012 (Annexure A-4), as also reiterated in paragraph 6 B(d) of O.M. dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure A-5), provides that in case of appointment of a widow not fulfilling the requirement of educational qualification, against the post of MTS, she will be placed in Group-C Pay Band-I Rs. 5200-20200+Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- directly without insisting on fulfillment of educational qualification norms. Thus the applicant cannot claim parity with Mrs. Hansa Devi etc. who might have been granted compassionate appointment as widows and, therefore, they were not required to fulfill condition of minimum educational qualification.
8. It is mentioned in the O.A. that no show cause notice was given to the applicant before terminating his services as required by paragraph 17 of O.M. dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure A-5). This plea is also without substance because application dated 1.1.2016 (Annexure A-3) moved by the applicant reveals that he was issued notice dated 31.12.2015 stipulating that he would be terminated w.e.f. 03.01.2016 on completion of 5 years service, due to non acquisition of minimum educational qualification. Application (Annexure A-3) also reveals that various other letters were issued to the applicant from time to time in this regard. The applicant submitted his version vide application (Annexure A-3). Consequently, his services were not terminated w.e.f. 3.1.2016 and he was allowed to continue in service to await the result of matriculation examination which was to be held in March/April 2016. However, he did not even appear in the said examination. It was only thereafter that the impugned order dated 13.5.2016 (Annexure A-1) was issued terminating the service of the applicant. Thus the principles of natural justice have been duly complied with in the instant case.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no infirmity or illegality in impugned order (Annexure A-1). The O.A. is devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER (J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) Dated: 02.06.2016 `SK 1 (O.A. No. 060/00494/2016)