Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Shravan Sharma vs M/O Textiles on 12 April, 2018
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
Date of order: L2-
OA. 350/1204/2015
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Jaya Das Gupta, Administrative Member
Shravan Sharma, son of Sharma, worked as Driver at National Institute
of Fashion Technology, Ministry of Textile, Government of India, LA
Block, Salt Lake, Kolkata and residing at Viii. Sindhena, P.O. & P.S. -
Rupow, Dist, Naida, State-Bihar, Pin no. 8051.
cant
-Versus-
The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry
of Textile, Govt. of India, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi-
110 001.
The Registrar(EStab1i5hmt)t National Institute of
Fashion Technology, Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India,
I-Iauz Khas, Near Gui Mohar Park, New Delhi-hO 016.
The Deputy Registrar., Finance and Accounts,
National Institute of Fashion Technology, Ministry of
Textile, Govt. of India, Govt. of India, Kolkata, Salt
Lake City, Kolkata-700 098.
The OSD(F&A), Nationa.l Institute of Fashion
Technology, Government of India, Ministry of Textile,
Kolkata, LA Block, Piot-313, Sector-Ill, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata-700 098..
RespondentS.
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. N. Roy, Counsel
For the Respondent (s) : Mi B. Chatterjee, Counsel
ORDER;
1aya Das Gupta, A4ministrative _
Membei
Per M.
11
2
The applicant Shri Shravan Sharma, has approached CAT, under Section 19 of the
AT, Act seeking the following reliefs:
To issue direction upon the respondents to give the regularised service of the
applicant forthwith.
To issue further direction upon the respondent, applicant service should be
extended further.
To issue further direction upon the respondent applicant service be continued
under the respondent forthwith.
'To issue further direction upon the respondent the applicant's representation
dt. 28.8.14 may be considered forthwith.
To issue further direction upon the respondent the applicant service would
continue where vacancy is there under the respondent authority for the post
of Driver.
2. Heard both sides in extenso. It was submited by the applicant that he was selected
as a Driver under the respondent authority i.e National Institute of Fashion Technology,
Kolkata after completion of a Skill Test with interview. Accordingly, having succeeded,
he was offered an appointment letter on Contract Basis. Such appointment letter is set
out below:
National Institute of Fashion Technology
Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India,
3001(180)Estt/Per.FI/2008/1059 Date: 01.09.08
ORDER
Consequent upon acceptance of the terms and conditions of appointment as Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/- contained in the of fer of appointment letter no. 3003(4)/F stt/Rectt/2008/8 74 dated 3011 Jhlij, 2008, the Competent Authority is pleased to appoint S/i. Slirovan S/ia rimi as Driver in NuT Kolkata Centre in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75- 3950-80-4590/- on contract basis for a period of three years w.e.f 07 51 August, 2008 (F/N). His pai' has been fixed at Rs. 3050/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/- n.e.fO7' August, 2008 (F/N). He will also he entitled to draw DA, HR1t CCA and TA as per 60/ rules, S d/-
(Dr. K.S. Pratap Kumar) Director To Sli. Shravan Shariiia, Driver, NIFT Kolkata.
With the approval of Central Director, the contractual appointment of Shri Shravan Sharma, Driver, National Institute of Fashion Technology, Kolkata Centre was extended for a further period of three years, up to 31st July, 2014 vide order dated 20th June, 2011. Another order emanated on 4 11, August, 2014 which is set out below:
National Institute of Fashion Technology Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India.
No.3038W/Estt./Contract Staff(Vol.2)/2014 Dated 04 August ,2014 With reference to offer of appointment letter No.3003(4)/Estt./Rectt./2008/874 dated 3th Julij,2008 and contract extension Order No. 3038(1)/Estt./Contract Staff/2000/359 dated 20111 J?-ne-201 1 issued by NIFT, Kolkata the contract -of S/i. Shravan Sharama / Driver National Institute of Fashion Technology, Kolkata is hereby extended for a further period of three months u.e.f 06-Aigus1-2014 to 5-Novemher-2014 (by giving 05(five) days break from 01-August- 2014 to 05-August-2014) or until further orders, inhichever is earlier, on existing terms and conditions, if not extended further, the contract stands-automatically expired without giving any notice in writing.
To Sh. Shravan Sharma;
Driver, NIFT Kolkata.
3. It is noted from the above letter that if his contractual term was not extended further, the contract stands automatically expired without giving any notice in writing.
Apparently, his term was not further extended and though he made a number of representations, he fails to elicit any positive response from the respondent authority. 4
4. We are all aware that contractual appointment does not cQnfer any rights on the contract appointee for continuation of service. In this context Civil Appellate Jurisdiction SLP Nos. 22475/22476/ 2012 is set out below: 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NOS. 22475-22476 OF 2012 Yogesh Mahajan ... Petitioner Versus Prof. P.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences ... Respondent JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The petitioner who appears in person was initially engaged on a contract basis as a Technical Assistant (ENT) in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in 1998. The initial contract was for a period of three months, but it was renewed from time to time, without any artificial breaks, on a quarterly or a six monthly basis. It appears that the services of the petitioner were taken on contract basis without following any laid down procedure and without adherence to any rules. The contract of the petitioner was finally extended from 1st January, 2010 to 30th June, 2010:
2. When the contract of the petitioner was not renewed after 30th June, 2010 he approached the Principal Bench ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 4104 of 2010. The OA was subsequently amended, but the essential prayer of the petitioner was to the effect that the order dated 24th November, 2010 passed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, declining to extend his contract ad hoc appointment by a further period of six months Ought to be quashed.
- ----..----,. / t
3. By its judgement and order dated 25th July, 2011 the Central Administrative Tribunal declined to grant this relief to the petitioner on the ground that he had no right to an extension of his services and further, he had no right to be regularised as a Technical Assistant since his appointment on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made without following any laid down procedure and without following any rules. In this regard, the Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Unia Devi (3)1 The OA was accordingly dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a review petition, but that too was dismissed. Eventually, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the Delhi High Court being W.P. (C) No. 7870 of 2011. The High Court passed a brief order recording that reliance placed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the decision of this Court in Uma Devi was correct. it was also recorded that the learned counsel for the All India Institute of Medical Sciences had stated that no contract employee in the ENT Department had been granted an extension after 1st January, 2009. In these circumstances the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner by its order dated 19th December, 2011. The petitioner preferred a review petition in the High Court, but that too was dismissed by an order dated 24th January, 2012. In the circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
We heard the petitioner, appearing in person, on 17th January, 2018. He submitted that there was no reason why his services were not extended. Even though he had received a favourable recommendation for the continuance of his services. He contended that the decision of the All India Instifute of Medical Sciences in not renewing his contract was arbitrary and qnjustified. The petitioner also drew our ention to a communication dated 22nd February, 2017 received by him from the 1 India institute of Medical Sciences in response to a query made by him under the ovisioi-is of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the communication, it was
-
6acknowledged that in May 2016 three persons were appointed to the post of Technical Assistant (ENT) after a walk-in interview. The contention of the petitioner was that under the circumstances, it was clear that the All India Institute of Medical Science needed the services of Technical Assistants and therefore there was no reason why his services were not extended.
It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30th June, 2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the concerned authorities should consider extending his contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractual basis. We dO not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by the concerned authorities and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the decision of this Court in Lirna Devi. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made in accordance with any regular procedure or by following the necessary. rules. That being so, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. The decision in Lima Devi does not advance the case of the petitioner. Insofar as the final submission of the petitioner to the effect that some persons were appointed as Technical Assistant (ENT) in May 2016 is concerned, we are of the view that the events of 2016 cannot relate back to the events of 2010 when a decision was taken by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences not to extend the contract of the petitioner.. The situation appears to have changed over the last six years and the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the changed situation. There is no material 7 on record to indicate what caused the change in circumstances, and merely because there was a change in circumstances, does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to any benefit. On the other hand, it might have been more appropriate for the petitioner to have participated in the walk-in interview so that he could also be considered for appointment as Technical Assistant (ENT), but he chose not to do so.
9. We find no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.
J (Madan B. Lokur) J (Deepak Gupta) New Delhi;
January 31, 2018
5. Accordingly1 there is no merit in this case, and the O.A deserves to be dismissed. The C. A is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Bidisha Banérjee) (Jaya Das Gupta) Member (J) Member (A) ss