Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the respondent herein – original writ petitioner joined the services of Defence Research Development Organization (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRDO’) on 12.09.1988, as Scientist ‘B’. That she got periodical promotions while working with the DRDO. That on 1.7.2013, she was promoted as Scientist ‘G’ and was heading the Intelligent Systems and Robotics Division in Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (for short, ‘CAIR’) of DRDO at Bangalore. That in the month of January, 2018, the NTRO issued a recruitment notification to fill up two posts of Scientist ‘H’ in Level 15 of the pay matrix. Initially, the notification stated that the recruitment was to be made on deputation including short term contract basis. However, subsequently, a corrigendum was published in the month of January, 2018 to fill up these posts on deputation (including short term)/absorption, failing which, on direct recruitment basis. The original writ petitioner, who was holding the post of Scientist ‘G’ in Level 14 of the pay matrix at CAIR, DRDO, applied for the post of Scientist ‘H’ in NTRO through her parent department, i.e., DRDO. Consequent to the approval of the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for appointment in NTRO as Scientist ‘H” dated 10.05.2018, the original writ petitioner was issued an offer of appointment on the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment including probation for a period of one year. On being selected and appointed as Scientist ‘H’ in NTRO on direct recruitment basis, the respondent – original writ petitioner tendered her technical resignation from the post of Scientist ‘G’ in DRDO, which came to be accepted on 22.6.2018 and DRDO relieved her to take up the new appointment in NTRO.
2.1 The original writ petitioner joined NTRO as Scientist ‘H’ on 26.2.2018 on direct recruitment basis with a probation period of one year. However, thereafter while she was on probation as Scientist ‘H’ in NTRO, the ACC vide order dated 12.02.2019 granted approval for her premature repatriation from the post of Scientist ‘H’ (on probation) in NTRO to her parent department cadre – DRDO with immediate effect.

Accordingly, the respondent was relieved from NTRO on 12.02.2019 with instructions to report to her parent cadre – DRDO. Pursuant to the same, she reported for duty at CAIR, DRDO on 13.02.2019 and simultaneously she submitted another application requesting the Chairman, DRDO to issue formal orders for her appointment in DRDO, after repatriation from NTRO. She also requested the DRDO to issue formal orders to appoint her on a suitable post in the rank of Scientist ‘H’ in DRDO. Awaiting formal orders, she requested DRDO for three months leave on 19.2.2019. Vide approval dated 10.03.2019, NTRO conveyed approval of DRDO Headquarters of her joining at DRDO w.e.f. 13.02.2019 in the parent cadre as Scientist ‘G’ upon her premature repatriation from NTRO (Scientist ‘H’ on probation). That thereafter, the original writ petitioner requested NTRO to reinstate her and treat her application dated 19.03.2019 as three months’ notice from 13.02.2019, for voluntary retirement.

(iv) That during the probation period, it appears that her work was not found satisfactory and a conscious decision was taken by the ACC not to continue her in NTRO and to relieve her as Scientist – H in NTRO and to repatriate her to her parent department – DRDO on the post of Scientist – G as her lien on the post of Scientist – G came to be continued as observed hereinabove. The respondent – original writ petitioner came to be relieved from NTRO on 12.02.2019 on the approval of the ACC received for her pre-mature repatriation from the post of Scientist – H (probation) in NTRO to her parent cadre – DRDO. In fact, thereafter, the respondent reported for duty at CAIR, DRDO on 13.02.2019 itself. However, simultaneously, she requested that she may be appointed in a suitable post in DRDO. No orders were passed and she continued to be the employee of the DRDO on and after 13.02.2019. Thereafter, she proceeded on three months’ leave as Scientist-G in DRDO. Therefore, once she reported for duty at CAIR, DRDO and she proceeded on leave for three months as Scientist – G at CAIR, DRDO on the post earlier held by her, i.e., Scientist – G, on which her lien in DRDO continued on her submitting the technical resignation earlier, she ceased to be the employee of NTRO and, that too, as Scientist – H in NTRO.

(v) At this stage, it is required to be noted that even thereafter, the respondent requested NTRO to reinstate her and to treat her application dated 19.03.2019, as three months’ notice for VRS. Therefore, her request for reinstatement in NTRO itself would suggest that the respondent – original writ petitioner was relieved from NTRO as then and then only would the question of reinstatement arise.

(vi) That thereafter, the respondent- original writ petitioner insisted for appointment/ posting as Scientist – H. Her case for promotion to the post of Scientist – H came to be considered by the Recruitment Assessment Centre. She submitted the application to the Director, Recruitment Assessment Centre for promotion to the post of Scientist – H. She sent her bio-data. She reported for the performance assessment at Hyderabad. Thereafter, she was found “not fit” for the promotion to the post of Scientist – H in DRDO. In the bio-data, she specifically stated that she is working as Scientist – G. The case set up on behalf of the respondent that she was compelled to submit the bio-data and/or compelled to appear for assessment of appraisal for promotion to the post of Scientist – H, cannot be accepted. No such grievance was made at the time when she appeared for interview for promotion to the post of Scientist – H in DRDO. She applied for the leave/earned leave from 13.02.2019 to 28.06.2019 as Scientist – G and even thereafter, she applied for forty days leave extension. 6.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it can be seen that on and from 13.02.2019, the respondent can be said to be the employee of DRDO and in any case, she cannot be said to have been continued in NTRO and/or on and from 13.02.2019, she cannot be treated to be an employee of the NTRO. In that view of the matter, the High Court has committed a very serious error in issuing the directions as above, more particularly, of treating the communication dated 12.02.2019, as an order of discharge simpliciter. The High Court has also committed a very serious error in ordering that under the order dated 12.02.2019, the services of the original writ petitioner – respondent herein shall stand discharged and she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the benefit of the past services that she had rendered in DRDO for computing her terminal benefits. We fail to appreciate under which provision, has the High Court issued such a direction that she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the benefit of past services that she had rendered in DRDO for computing her terminal benefits directed to be paid by NTRO. The directions issued by the High Court are self-contradictory. 6.3 Even otherwise, the High Court has committed a serious error in observing that the original writ petitioner – respondent herein would be entitled to all such benefits as are permissible to her on the premise that she held the post of Scientist – H and the last pay drawn in that post would be the criteria for settling all her benefits. Once, she was relieved from NTRO and she had reported for duty as Scientist – G in DRDO as observed hereinabove, thereafter she cannot be permitted to claim that she had continued working as Scientist – H in NTRO.