w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rakesh Kumar v/s Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh through Director


Company & Directors' Information:- M G INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301DL2002PTC118047

Company & Directors' Information:- E-GRADUATE INSTITUTE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302TN2003PTC051577

Company & Directors' Information:- M. S. INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U80301DL2006PTC152100

Company & Directors' Information:- INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH [Active] CIN = U80904UP2012NPL048973

Company & Directors' Information:- P R EDUCATION INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903DL2004PTC129195

Company & Directors' Information:- V C EDUCATION INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903DL2004PTC129201

Company & Directors' Information:- R V EDUCATION INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903DL2004PTC129311

    O.A.No. 060/00046 of 2015

    Decided On, 18 January 2016

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK
    By, MEMBER (J) & THE HONOURABLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA
    By, MEMBER (A)

    For the Applicant: Raman Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Rajesh Garg, Sr. Advocate along with Nimrata Shergill, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J).

1. The applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal challenging the order dated 09.10.2014 whereby his claim for regularization of his services in terms of direction of this court has been turned down.

2. This is a second time that the applicant is approaching this court for the same very grievance and for adjudication of his grievance, the facts are to be noticed first. The applicant initially engaged by Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (in short ‘PGIMER’) as Class IV/Parking Attendant on daily wage basis w.e.f. 24.02.1992 and worked till 31.08.1992 when his services were terminated. He challenged the termination order by raising demand notice dated 24.08.1993 and during conciliation proceedings, a settlement took place under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the applicant was reinstated w.e.f. 07.09.1994. Subsequently, when the applicant was marked absent from the duty 10.06.1998 onwards, he was not allowed to join the duty despite various representations to the higher authorities. The applicant again raised a demand notice in which date for conciliation was fixed as 15.02.1999. During the aforementioned proceedings, services of the applicant were again terminated vide order dated 03.02.1999 and the dispute raised by the applicant was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, which was finally decided in his favour by award dated 28.04.2004 which was published in Gazette of Chandigarh dated 23.06.2004 whereby termination of the applicant was declared as illegal and he was held entitled for reinstatement into service with continuity of service without back wages. After publication of Award, the applicant made representations to allow him to join service and to grant him all benefits of continuity of service and regularization since person junior to him had been so regularized. Contrary to award, the applicant was forced to join the duty as daily wager. He ultimately submitted his joining report on 09.01.2006. Thereafter, the applicant made numerous representations demanding that since juniors have been given regular appointment, he should be regularized from the same very date and granted regular scale pay at par with them. When the respondent did pay any heed to him, he approached this Tribunal by filing O.A No. 527/CH/2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.04.2014 with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the applicant for regularization w.e.f. 2007 onwards. It is in this context that the respondent has passed the order rejecting his claim vide impugned order dated 09.10.2014 on the ground that the committee in its meeting held on 24.09.2014 did not recommend his case for regularization w.e.f. 2007 onwards.

3. Sh. Raman Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that impugned order is nothing but colourable exercise of power to deny the right which has already been recognized by this court in earlier round of litigation. Despite a finding by a court of law in favour of the applicant, the authorities have passed cryptic and arbitrary order which may be quashed and set aside.

4. The respondent has filed written statement wherein it is submitted that in terms of the order passed by this court in earlier round of litigation, they placed the matter before the committee which did not find it a fit case for recommendation for regularization of services of applicant from 2007 onwards and therefore, it was rejected.

5. Sh. Rajesh Garg, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that since in terms of Annexure R-1, the committee did not recommend the case of the applicant for regularization, the authorities have passed the impugned order which meets the requirement of law.

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and perused the pleadings available on record.

7. On a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings, we find ourselves in agreement with the submissions made at the hands of the applicant that impugned order is cryptic and cannot sustain in the eyes of law as it does not contain reasons and the respondent has also not taken into account the findings recorded by this court in earlier round of litigation. Perusal of the earlier order makes it clear that based upon the award dated 28.04.2014 given by the Labour Court giving continuity of service, this Court had held that his case is to be considered for regularization at least w.e.f 2007 onwards in terms of policy and by counting 240 days from that date. When the matter was considered by respondent, they have completely over looked the findings recorded by this court and have rejected the claim on foreign grounds which they cannot because instruction i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ssued by the Government of India only talks of that if an employee worked for more than complete 240 days, then he has to be conferred temporary status, therefore, impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent to issue an order of regularization in favour of the applicant from date when he completed 240 days after 2007 in earlier round. Let the above exercise be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 8. No costs.
O R