Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Praveen Khan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 March, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA NO.1184/2009
MA NO.286/2010
With
OA NO.1461/2009
NEW DELHI, THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2010
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN
HONBLE MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A)
HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J)
OA NO.1184/2009
1. Mrs. Praveen Khan,
Aged about 36 years,
W/o Sh. Waseem Khan,
R/o 149, Basti Khajah Meerdard
Buran Road, Delhi.
2. Talat Jahan
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Sh. Anjum Akhter,
R/o 518, G.R.D. Nagar,
Laxami Nagar, Delhi.
3. Parveen Sharma,
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Sh. Mudit Sharma,
R/o 589, Gali No.38,
D. Molarband,
Bardarpur, Delhi.
4. Anita Kaushik,
Aged about 45 years,
W/o Sh. Rakesh Kaushik,
R/o D-38, East Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi -110059
5. Poonam Sharma,
Aged about 43 years,
W/o Sh. Madanlal Sharma,
R/o K-159, Kangra Niketan Vikas Puri,
New Delhi
6. Shashi Sharma,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Sh. Purshottam Lal Sharma,
R/o B-1567, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
7. Rashmi Bhatnagar,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Sh. Rajesh Bhatnagar,
R/o J-74D, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-52
8. Sunita Jain,
Aged about 40 years,
W/o Sh.Mukesh Kumar Jain,
R/o X/2780, Gali No.6C, Raghuwar Pura,
No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
9. Kusum Bala,
Aged about 40 years,
W/o Sh.Ram Ratan Singh,
R/o 8-A, Pocekt-12, DDA Flats,
Jasola, Delhi.
10. Manju Jhamb,
Aged about 37 years,
W/o Sh. Hukum Chand,
R/o D/5, 495, Sangam Vihar,
Delhi.
11. Pushpa Rani,
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Sh.Vijender Singh,
R/o Gali No.I House No.106,
Village Wazirabad Post Office Burari,
Delhi.
12. Nirmala Devi,
Aged about 29 years,
W/o Sh.Umesh Kumar Sharma,
R/o 348, Gali No.2, Chanderlok Colony,
Mandoli Road, Shahadra, Delhi-92.
13. Manju
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Sh.Omprakash,
R/o Y-1220, Mangol Puri, New Delhi.
14. Indu
Aged about 47 years,
W/o Sh.Ashok Kumar,
R/o IG-II/76,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
15. Babli Nagar,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Sh.Tej Pal,
R/o 17/145,Gali No.5,
Anand Parvat, New Delhi-05.
16. Bhagwati Rawat,
Aged about 38 years,
W/o Sh.Prem Singh,
R/o H.No.43,Gali No.I, Uttaranchal Enclave,
Kamalpur, Burari, Delhi.
17. Shanta,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Sh.Naresh Kumar,
R/o 470,Type-I, Gulabi Bagh,
Delhi-07.
18. Geeta Devi,
Aged about 43 years,
W/o Sh.Ramesh Kumar,
R/o D-64, Yadav Nagar,
Sameypur, Delhi-42.
19. Babita,
Aged about 41 years,
W/o Sh.D.K.Goswami,
R/o 124-C, G&J (U), Pitam Pura,
Delhi.
20. Vijay Laxmi
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Sh.Raj Kamal Sharma,
R/o D-Block, Gali No.5, House No.82,
Omnagar, Delhi-44.
21. Krishna Sharma,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Sh.Sanjay Sharma
R/o A-86/3, Sourab Vihar, Jaitpur,
Badarpur, New Delhi-44.
22. Nasrin Bano,
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Sh.Mohd. Yusuf,
R/o B-46/3, Abul Eayal Enclave,
PointII, Okhla, New Delhi.
23. Munesh Rani,
Aged about 41 years,
W/o Sh.Gazander Singh,
R/o A-316, Mandoli, Bhudha Marg,
Delhi.
24. Uma Bist,
Aged about 41 years,
W/o Sh.Manohar Singh,
R/o B-33, Gali No.2, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi.
25. Anita Bindal,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Sh.Satish Bindal
R/o B-51, Molar Band Village,
Near Bharti Public School, Delhi.
26. Jaya Jostlo,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Sh.D.C.Joshi,
R/o F-35, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi.
27. Kusum,
Aged about 41 years,
W/o Sh.Kishore Kumar,
R/o E-2/437, Nand Nagari,
Delhi.
28. Kamlesh,
Aged about 40 years,
W/o Sh.Laxmi Chand,
R/o 13/367, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-31.
29. Parvati,
Aged about 46 years,
W/o Sh.Vishnu Singh
R/o 5/180, 3rd Floor,
Subhash Nagar, Delhi.
30. Saroj
Aged about 43 years,
W/o Sh.Krishan Kumar,
R/o H.No.958, Pana Paposion,
Narela, Delhi-40.
31. Nirmala
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Sh.Vijay,
R/o H.No.499, Pana Nagar,
Narela, Delhi. .Applicants
(Through Shri G.D. Gupta, Senior counsel with Shri S.K. Gupta)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. Secretary,
Directorate of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Gate, Delhi
3. Director,
Department of Women and Child Development,
Directorate of Social Welfare,
1, Canning Lane,
New Delhi-1 .Respondents
(Through Smt. P.K. Gupta, Advocate)
OA NO.1461/2009
1. Sulekha D/o Sh.Bhagwas Das,
R/o C-1/48 Raju Colony,Devli Road,
Khanpur, Delhi-62.
2. Ravi Prakash S/o Sh.Chaturbhuj Tiwari
R/o M Block, H.No.159, Sunder Nagri
Shahdra, Delhi-93.
3. Beena Rani D/o Sh.C.Lal Bhardwaj,
R/o 82 A LIG Flats Pocket-E,
GTB Enclave, Nand Nagri, Delhi-92.
4. Parul Kaushik D/o Sh.R.P.Kaushik,
R/o C-I/57 Krishna Vihar,
Delhi-86.
5. Deepika Sharma D/o Sh.I.K.Sharma,
R/o C-44/245B, Street No.12
Gamri Extension, Delhi-53.
6. Pratibha Kaushik D/o Sh.Ramesh Chandra Kaushik,
R/o H.No. 557/5, Haider Pur
Delhi-88.
7. Deepika, D/o Sh.Shiv Kumar Verma
R/o RZD 1A/12A, Gali No.5,
Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi.
8. Preeti Verma D/o Sh. Om Prakash Verma
R/o RZF-100 Gali No.41, Sadhnagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi-45. . Applicants
(Through Shri G.D. Gupta, Senior counsel with Shri S.K. Gupta)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat
New Delhi
2. The Secretary,
GNCT of Delhi, Department of Women and
Child Development,
1-Canning Lane, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Director Admn.
Department of Social Welfare
Govt. of NCT Delhi,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(Through Smt. P.K. Gupta, Advocate)
ORDER
Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) A question arose in the Original Applications before us whether it would be permissible for an employer to replace a set of contractual employees, on competition of their period of contract, by another set of employees on contract again.
2. The need for the DB to make a reference to a larger Bench arose on account of the view taken by a learned coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA number 1455/2009, Ruchi Singh and others Vs. Ministry of Social Welfare and others, on the authority of the judgement of Honourable Supreme Court in Harminder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2009 (7) SCALE 204, that a group of contract workers can be replaced by another group. It was observed thus :
3. As contract employees, even if working for a number of years, no regularization is permissible de hors the rules. Moreover, the Apex Court has recently in Harminder Kaur & Ors vs. UOI & Ors, (2009) 7 SCALE 204, ruled that in such an event the contract workers can be replaced by another set of contract workers and they cannot seek regularization as a matter of right. However, they are free to participate in the selection process in which the question of relaxation in age has to be considered. (emphasis added)
3. The DB, which made the reference, however, referred the matter to a larger Bench for considering the issue regarding the replacement of a set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees and correct interpretation of the judgement in Harminder Kaur (supra) in the light of Supreme Courts judgements on the same issue in some other cases to which we shall advert later in this order. In the above cited judgement of the Supreme Court the appellants before the Court were teachers appointed on contract basis by Chandigarh Administration. The appellants approached the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal for regularization of their services and challenging the right of the Administration to issue fresh advertisement for appointment of teachers. This Tribunal allowed the Application only to the extent that they could not be replaced or substituted by another set of teachers appointed on contract basis. This order of the Tribunal was not challenged before any higher judicial forum. Another Original Application was filed by the teachers appointed on contract, seeking directions to Chandigarh Administration to frame a scheme for their regularization and to restrain the Administration to appoint regular teachers. The Tribunal dismissed this OA by observing that they had no right to be regularized in service and their appointment had to come to an end on their replacement by regularly selected teachers. The Writ Petition against this order was dismissed by the High Court. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court. It is in this conspectus that the Supreme Court held that the contract employees can be replaced by regularly appointed employees, while also noting the earlier order of this Tribunal in paragraph 3 of the judgement that contract employees may not be replaced or substituted by another set of employees appointed on contract basis. Clearly, the learned coordinate Bench of this Tribunal completely misread the judgement in Harminder Kaur to hold that the Honourable Supreme Court has observed therein that contract workers can be replaced by another set of contract workers.
4. The Supreme Court, while considering an issue regarding the regularisation of ad hoc / temporary employees in Piara Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1992 (4) SLR 770 held, inter alia, that :
Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. While considering the case of termination of services of ad hoc doctors in the Railways in a batch of appeals including Dr. A.K. Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1987 (Supp) SCC 497, the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed thus:
No ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer/ Assistant Divisional Medical Officer who may be working in the Railways shall be replaced by any newly appointed AMO/ ADMO on ad hoc basis. Whenever there is need for the appointment of any AMO/ ADMO on ad hoc basis in any zone the existing ad hoc AMO/ ADMOs who are likely to be replaced by regularly appointed candidates shall be given preference. Similar issue regarding regularization of contractual teacher under NDMC was considered by Delhi High Court in Dilip Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council in WP (C) numbers 16499 16502/2004, decided on 1.09.2006. The contractual teachers were seeking directions for their regularization. The High Court dismissed the petition with the following observations:
6. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, subject to the direction that the respondent will not replace the petitioners with other contractual employees and in case by virtue of regular appointment the petitioners become surplus, the respondent will follow the rule of last come first.
5. The issue is thus well settled on the basis of the judicial precedents cited above that a set a contractual employees shall not be replaced by another set of contractual employees except if the contractual employees are not working satisfactorily. The reference is thus answered. The judgement in Ruchi Singh (supra) is overruled to this extent. The Original Applications are remitted to the DB for further adjudication.
(Mrs. Meera Chhibber) (L.K. Joshi) (V.K.Bali) Member (J) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /dkm/