Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The applicant had then explained the complication which had arisen in her case with the advent of the new RRs, 2007 (Annexure A-16), and we shall revert to that shortly. However, the applicant worked as Director for 5 years from 2006 to 2011, and vide their order dated 27.09.2011, the respondent No. R-1 extended her services on the post of Director for one more year (Annexure A-17). In Para 4.17 of her OA, the applicant has alleged that despite the fact that all appointments with the Respondent No.R-1-NSCS are made against permanent vacant posts, through a duly constituted Selection Committee, and on the same service conditions and pay scales as admissible to temporary/regular Group 'A' officers, yet the method of contract is a normal mode of appointment to NSCS under the RRs, which has been designed only to keep the officers in continuous stress. At the same time, the appointments made under 50% promotion quota are also made against the permanent vacant posts, from among the already serving temporary/regular/absorbed officers in the feeder cadre. She has further submitted that the mode of absorption under the RRs is essentially meant for regularization of the services of those officers who are appointed to NSCS on Contract, or on Deputation basis. In the conspectus of these submissions, the applicant has claimed that when on 03.10.2003, she was first appointed against the permanent vacant post of Deputy Secretary with Respondent No.R-1- NSCS, and later on, when on 29.09.2006 she was duly appointed against the permanent vacant post of Director, at the time of absorbing her services with Respondent No.R-1-NSCS, she ought to have been absorbed w.e.f. 03.10.2003 on the post of Deputy Secretary, and w.e.f. 29.09.2006 on the post of Director, under the relevant DoP&T instructions in this regard, which the respondent No.1-NSCS has not done, giving rise to the present O.A.

13. The applicant has further submitted that she had all along been representing for treating her service with IDSA w.e.f. March, 1992 as being in continuum for the purpose of her pension and retirement benefits. She has further submitted that but for the allure of pension facility in the Government service, which is not available to IDSA employees, she would have, in fact, continued to work in the IDSA. It was further submitted that the Govt. of India had since regularized all contract appointments made by IDSA, with effect from the initial dates of their contractual appointments, and that IDSA has since extended Pension benefits to all such regularized IDSA employees, under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

36. It was submitted by R-1- NSCS that merely appointing her on contract basis against a regular post, and notifying such an appointment in the Gazette of India, and granting her annual increments and other benefits as admissible to regularly appointed officers in that pay scale cannot bestow upon her the status of a regular Government servant, since the conditions of her contract appointment were governed by the agreement duly accepted and signed by her, which contract agreement itself inter-alia included application of Fundamental Rules (FRs), LTC Rules, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1972 etc. to her appointment. It was further submitted that contract appointments and absorption were two different modes prescribed in the 2001 RRs, and a contract employee is governed only by the agreement signed by him/her, and attains the status of a regular Government servant only after absorption.

82. All the four private respondents filed their separate counter-replies also. Private respondents R-2 to R-5 had in their written submissions dated 22.01.2016 submitted that they are not inclined to file any separate reply in the matter, and would adopt the counter-reply already filed by R-1-NSCS in the aforesaid OA. With this the pleadings were completed.

83. Heard. As already mentioned above, the case was argued in great detail on two dates of hearing. Thereafter, the learned counsels also submitted written submissions of their arguments. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant, most of the arguments as advanced, along the lines of the OA and the rejoinder, were reiterated. It was further submitted that her previous Employer IDSA had actually forwarded her application for the post of Deputy Secretary with R-1 NSCS along with NOC itself, but, during the course of recruitment process of written test and interview conducted in August 2003, the R-1 NSCS had asked her to submit resignation from IDSA, if she was ready to join to the post of Deputy Secretary on a permanent basis. It was submitted that the applicant is a renowned research scholar, and she was assured by R-1-NSCS that though her appointment was being made against a permanent sanctioned vacant post, initially the appointment order would be only for a contract of two years, and she was further assured that it was akin to regular appointment, along with reasoning given that the R-1-NSCS's RRs provide for appointment only through the modes of contract for new entrants, or otherwise on deputation for temporary appointments, absorption and re-employment etc. It was submitted that she had been further assured that she would be absorbed/given regular status from the initial date of her joining itself, by maintaining the seniority, as well as reckoning her past service in IDSA.