Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Rakesh Kumar & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Others on 24 July, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
MA No. 1991/2014 in
OA No. 579/2014
Order Reserved on: 18.07.2014
Pronounced on: 24 .07.2014
Honble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A)
Sh. Rakesh Kumar & ors. - Applicants
Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others - Respondents
Present: Ms. Jyoti Singh, senior counsel with
Ms. Tinu Bajwa, counsel for applicant.
Sh. N.K.Singh for
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Honble Shri V.N.Gaur, Member (A) Heard Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel for applicant and Sh. N.K.Singh, counsel for respondents.
2. The applicants, 128 in number, presently working as Craft Instructors moved this MA no.1991/2014 in OA-579/2014 with a prayer to stay the operation of letter no. F.20(28)/2014/Trg.Admn/622 dated 10.07.2014 issued by Department of Training and Technical Education, GNCTD.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that earlier the applicants had approached this Tribunal in OA nos.2452/2010, 2473/2010 and 2574/2010 praying for direction to the respondents for regularizing their services. This Tribunal vide order dated 20.08.2010 directed the respondents to continue the applicants on contract basis and also initiate the process of regularization of the applicants, and in such an event the respondents shall consider granting age relaxation to the applicants while considering for regular appointments. However, the respondents moved to fill up the vacancies through the advertisement no.1/14 dated 20.01.2014 which was stayed by this Tribunal by the order dated 24.02.2014 in the present OA, inter alia, with the following interim directions:
6. However, in the interest of justice and in view of the prima facie case made out, the respondents are directed that until the claim of the applicants for regularization is considered, they shall not proceed to fill up the related vacancies by any other process.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that at present the contract of the applicants are renewed annually on the basis of the work appraisals by the Principals of various skills/ITIs. This year the contract of the applicants was due renewal on 31.07.2014 but despite clear direction from this Tribunal the respondents through letter dated 10.07.2014 (impugned) have introduced a new system for assessing the performance of the applicants which consist of factors like performance report sent by Principal concerned, performance in the written test relating to trade/trade group concerned and performance in interview. The learned counsel claimed that this was nothing but an attempt by the respondents to circumvent the order of this Tribunal dated 24.02.2014. It is not disputed that the respondents have not yet considered the claim of the applicants as they are yet to come out with their policy in this regard as directed by the Honble High Court in WP(C) no.6798/200 titled Sonia Gandhi & ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors. Therefore, there is no justification for introducing a new method of performance appraisal which is more like a screening test to get rid of contractual employees in violation of the orders of this Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that the Government was already seized of the matter regarding the policy for regularization of contract employees in terms of directions of Honble High Court of Delhi in Sonia Gandhis case (supra). He further stated that the method to assess the performance of contractual employees was to be decided by the respondents and the applicants have no right to insist on a particular methodology for the appraisal of their performance.
6. We have heard both the sides and find that this Tribunals order dated 24.02.2014 had unambiguously stated that until the claim of the applicants for regularization is concerned, they shall not proceed to approach the limited vacancies by any other process. The learned counsel for the respondents has a point that the method through which the performance of the applicants has to be assessed comes within the realm of the respondents and applicants have no rights on the matter. However, in the background of the facts of the present case, we find that the implications of introducing the proposed methodology for assessing the performance will lead to a result that will be in conflict with the order of this Tribunal dated 24.02.2014. It is obvious that once the applicants undergo written test and interview in addition to the assessment of performance record, there may be larger number of contractual employees who may not qualify, especially when the notice for the test is so short, and, therefore, their contract will have to be discontinued from 31.07.2014, the day their contract comes to an end. On the other hand this Tribunal has directed respondents to consider the contractual employees for regularization within the framework of the policy formulated as directed by the Honble High Court of Delhi in Sonia Gandhis case (supra). The contract of the applicants will have to be renewed without any change in the appraisal system to ensure fairness and compliance of various orders of this Tribunal till such time their claims for regularisation has been considered. It will be in the interest of justice not to change the prevailing system of assessment of performance etc. that may adversely affect the contractual employees before their claims have been considered and decided. Accordingly, we stay the operation of letter no. no. F.20(28)/2014/Trg.Admn/622 dated 10.07.2014 until the claim of the applicants for regularization has been considered. MA is allowed.
( V.N.Gaur ) ( V. Ajay Kumar ) Member (A) Member (J) sd