AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ext.P3 verdict passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.180/00164/2017 dated 3rd April 2017 is under challenge by the applicant in the Original
Application.
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents.
The case projected by the applicant is that he was appointed as Project Assistant Grade-II at the National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science
and Technology (for short ''Institute'') for one year as per Annexure A1 on 9.10.2012 and subsequently, it was extended to 8.4.2013 and again
extended for a further period up to 30.9.2013 pursuant to Annexure A5 and A6. He is a qualified Post Graduate in Chemistry. He was entrusted
with the work of Technical Officer though he entered the service on contractual basis as Project Assistant and was operating and handling Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (''""NMR Machine""). So he was discharging the duties of a Technical Officer. Several persons appointed as
Project Assistants were regularized as Technical Officers, but he was not appointed as Technical Officer and his representation to get appointment
to the permanent post of Technical Officer was rejected and hence, the application was filed to absorb him to the permanent post of Technical
Officer in the Institute as well to declare that he is entitled to get equal payment of salary as that of a Technical Officer.
After a detailed examination the Tribunal passed Ext.P3 verdict rejecting the claim of the applicant and held that his appointment was purely on
contract basis and as the contract was terminated he has no right to be absorbed or for any other relief. The operative portion of the order reads
as follows:
The engagement was purely on contract basis. It was not on a pay scale. The contract was terminated and so the applicant has no right to be
absorbed or for any other relief.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the amount due to the applicant based on the contract was already paid. Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that though the amount due upto 28.2.2017 was paid, something more is due for the subsequent days he had
worked. That will be certainly paid if it is not paid, the respondents'' counsel submits.
That submission is recorded. Since no other relief is to be granted in this Original Application, this O.A is closed.
The grievance projected by the applicant is that though he had five years of service in the Institute his representation to regularize in the post of
Technical Officer was not considered by the Institute.
The applicant is admittedly a Post Graduate in Chemistry. He was appointed on 9.10.2012 as per Annexure A1 on temporary basis for a
consolidated pay of Rs.12,000/- per month. In Annexure A1 it was specifically stated that the period of adhoc engagement was only up to
8.4.2013. It was also stated that it was not an offer of appointment and it will not confer any right/claim implicit or explicit for consideration for
regularisation in any post in Council of Scientific or Industrial Research (CSIR) or its labs. Annexure A1 would indicate that the appointment was
only adhoc engagement which could be terminated even without assigning any reason. The tenure of project staff was co-terminus with the project.
Of course the applicant''s tenure was extended two or three times and finally it was extended up to 31.3.2017 the date of the completion of the
project. Annexure A9 is the revised guidelines relating to engagement of Project Staff in the Institute. The selection procedure of staff in the
Institute and the mode of recruitment is discernible from Annexure A9. But it is not discernible that there is any procedure of absorption of
temporary staff appointed in the Institute. It is to be noted that the initial appointment of the applicant was only on temporary basis for a period of
one year, though extended till completion of the project. The payment effected was also consolidated pay and the extension of tenure was effected
only up to the completion of the project with a consolidated pay/stipend with no right for absorption or regularisation. Since a prayer for equal
wages was sought for an interim order dated 20.6.2017 was passed in the following terms :-
The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the specific case projected by the petitioner was never adverted to with proper application of
mind and the grievance is more with regard to the nature of work which was being extracted by the respondent by deploying him for technical
work along with another person by name Mrs.Saumini Mathew and they were discharging the entire technical work for the project. It was
accordingly, that he was sought to be regularised in service as in the case of seven other persons named in paragraph 13. Similarly, there was a
prayer for payment of equal wages as payable in respect of technical staff, which is stated as quite sustainable in the light of the verdict rendered by
the Apex Court on the point.
The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent seeks for two weeks'' time to get the relevant particulars in this regard and to file an
affidavit.
Thereafter a detailed statement was filed by the Institute and produced additional documents as Exts.R1 to R11.
Exts.R1 to R9 would reveal the fact that the engagement of the applicant was terminated from the Institute along with the other 67 Project
Assistants on completion of all formalities. It is also pertinent to note that the one year assignment was taken up by the applicant expressing his
willingness to accept the terms and conditions specified in the order. The engagement of Project Assistants was purely on temporary basis and they
were relieved on completion of the tenure of the project. As per Annexure R2(ii) the stipend will be released to them only on submitting non due
certificate and as per the order under challenge, the Tribunal has directed to pay the amount due to the applicant based on the contract if the
amount is not paid. As the appointment was on consolidated pay/stipend, the request for equal pay as that of the Technical Staff also cannot be
granted and hence, the request for equal pay as that of the Technical Staff also cannot be entertained. Though his tenure was extended till the
completion of the project, the initial engagement was only on contract basis with a consolidated pay and hence, the request made for regularization
was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. We find absolutely no legal or justifiable ground to interdict with the verdict under challenge. The Original
Petition is dismissed.