Battal Singh vs Union Of India & Others

Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

The applicant was selected for the post of Technical Manager (Joint Director) with National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) on contractual basis. He continued to work in NABL which was merged with Quality Council of India (QCI) w.e.f. 04.01.2017. All through this period, the applicant was assigned various duties and was adjudged as 'Very Good' in the APARs. The applicant was also not subjected to any disciplinary proceedings or vigilance enquiry. He was also due for extension and regularisation which was denied to him. The respondent vide impugned order dated 15.01.2021 served upon him a 3 months notice for discontinuation of his service w.e.f. 31.03.2021. Aggrieved by this action on part of the 3rd respondent, the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing WP (C) No. 2404/2021. The same was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directing the applicant to approach the Tribunal. The applicant has, accordingly, filed the present OA praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 and for a direction to the respondents to grant extension of his tenure and to regularize him.

The applicant contends that all through his tenure initially in NABL and, thereafter, in QCI w.e.f. 2015 till now his APAR gradings consistently have been 'Very Good'. On merger of NABL with QCI, the applicant automatically became an employee of QCI and in view of his gradings in the APARs, the respondent should not only have extended his tenure, but also regularised him at par with other employees. It is also stated that the applicant has worked on different positions as and when required by the respondents and no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him during his tenure. The order of termination dated 15.01.2021 is, therefore, illegal and should be set aside.

We heard Mr. Arun Bhardwaj with Mr. Piyush Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Vijendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the OA stating that the action taken by the respondents regarding discontinuance of the services of the applicant is strictly in accordance with the rules. The applicant is a contractual employee and his services have been discontinued on the basis of his performance.

The applicant was selected for appointment as Technical Manager (Testing and Calibration) vide order dated 23.09.2015 on contractual basis for a period of 4 years in NABL. In the appointment order dated 23.09.2015, it was clearly mentioned that the contract will stand automatically terminated after 4 years from the date of joining. Subsequently, vide office order dated 03.02.2017, it was decided that all employees of NABL are deemed employees of QCI w.e.f. 04.01.2017. Subsequently, the QCI undertook the process of regularisation of such contractual employees. The office order issued by QCI dated 11.02.2019 mentions that the nature of 119 sanctioned post of NABL shall be changed from contractual to regular. The process of regularisation was to be undertaken for the contractual staff against the sanctioned post as governed by the Service and Finance Manual, QCI. Certain conditions were laid down for regularisation of the contractual employees. In the order dated 11.02.2019, these conditions have been specified as follows; "(a) The regularization of this category of employees shall be carried out through a process as defined in the Service & Finance Manual and QCI, provided their performance during the period from the date of effective merger of NABL with QCI (i.e.4.1.2017) is found to be 'Very Good and above'. (b) The employees with performance less than very good shall be given time of one year to improve their performance. However, in case the employee fails to reach the level of 'Very Good' after one year, he/she may be given additional chance of one year to improve the performance. After two consecutive chances, the employee shall be asked to leave the organization."

The applicant worked on various positions assigned to him and was adjudged as 'Very Good' in his APARs and his case was only considered for regularisation by the Review Committee. It is obvious from the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 that the case of the applicant for regularization in QCI was considered through a stipulated process thrice i.e. on 26.07.2019, 27.06.2020 and 08.01.2021. The impugned detailed order clearly narrates that the applicant's case for regularisation was considered on 26.07.2019 on completion of his contractual period by the Review Committee and the Committee recommended that his case shall be reconsidered after a period of 1 year thereby granting the applicant an opportunity to improve his performance. The applicant's case was again placed before the Review Committee in its meeting held on 27.06.2020. The Committee, further, recommended that it should be reconsidered after a period of 6 months. The contract period was extended from time to time and the last extension granted to the applicant was upto 31.12.2020. The Review Committee once again considered the case of the applicant for regularization in its meeting held on 08.01.2021. The Review Committee evaluated his performance based on various parameters and did not recommend the applicant's case for regularization instead it recommended for discontinuation of his services by giving him a 3 months notice.

It is evident that the applicant was appointed on contractual basis in the year 2015 for a specific period of 4 years. It was clearly mentioned that no further extension shall be granted beyond the period of 4 years. However, the process of regularisation was undertaken by the QCI for contractual employees based on prescribed criteria. The applicant, who was graded as 'very good' in all his APARs, was also considered for regularization by the Review Committee. The Review Committee considered his case thrice, granting him extension for 1 year and subsequently, a further extension of another 6 months precisely as an opportunity to improve his performance.

Despite these extensions granted to the applicant during which it was expected that he will improve his performance on various parameters in terms of the policy of the QCI, the Committee in its meeting held on 08.01.2021 once again considered the case of the applicant for regularization and did not find him up to the mark and recommended for discontinuation of his services. The applicant was a contractual employee for a specific period of time. It is also a fact that his services have been discontinued based on his performance which was not found up to the mark despite the fact that he was given several opportunities for improving his performance. His case was considered thrice but the Committee did not find him suitable for regularisation in view of his performance. The services of a contractual employee can be terminated on expiry of the contract period. In the case of the applicant his contract was for a period of 4 years despite that the respondents granted him extension to bring about improvement in his performance and as his performance was not up to the mark, his services have been discontinued. The applicant's claim that he was adjudged as 'Very Good' in his APAR and, therefore, he has a right to be regularized cannot be sustained. We find that that the respondents have provided adequate opportunities before terminating the services of the applicant and there is no infirmity or irregularity in their decision to do so.

We are, therefore, of the view that the OA is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.