MOHAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2016-8-94
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 04,2016

MOHAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.)The petitioner prays for quashing the orders dated 29.2.2016 dismissing his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench and 8.6.2015, terminating his engagement as Senior Project Fellow (SPF), Annexures P.10 and P.6 respectively. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of SPF.
(2.)A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The respondents invited online applications for the post of Project Fellows/Senior Project Fellows at CSIR-CSIO Chandigarh vide advertisement No.6/2013 for 12th five year plan on stipend of Rs. 18000.00 per month plus 20% HRA for SPF. The tenure of the Follow was to be co-terminus with the expiry of the project i.e. March 2017. In pursuance to the above advertisement, the petitioner being eligible for the project at Sr.No.4 applied online and the offer of engagement as Project Fellow Sr.No.4 in the CSIR 12th Five years plan was issued to him on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter dated 8.8.2013, Annexure P.2. The engagement of the petitioner was upto March 2017 or duration of the project whichever was earlier. The petitioner possessing requisite qualifications and experience was appointed as SPF at CSIO, Chandigarh and took over charge as Senior Project Fellow upto March 2017 on 30.10.2013, Annexure P.3. Respondent No.3 - Project-in- Charge issued a letter dated 8.5.2015, Annexure P.5 to the petitioner for submitting six monthly work report on the project by 14.5.2015. The petitioner submitted the project report on 14.5.2015 for the last one and half years from Oct. 2013 to March 2014, March 2014 to Oct. 2014 and Oct. 2014 to April 2015. The engagement of the petitioner was upgraded from Project Fellow to Senior Project Fellow on the basis of his qualifications and work experience vide letter dated 18.10.2013, Annexure P.4. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued termination letter dated 8.6.2015, Annexure P.6. According to the petitioner, neither any reason was assigned nor any prior notice was given to him before passing the termination order. The other SPFs were still continuing despite the fact that they also submitted six monthly reports after more than one year. Further, respondent No.4 was not competent to issue the termination order. The petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the termination order and for reinstating him in the service. The project report was asked for the first time on 8.5.2015 by the Project-in-Charge and the same was submitted on 14.5.2015 without any delay. There was no deliberate attempt to delay the submission of the project report. Aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed CWP No.13036 of 2015 in this Court. Vide order dated 3.7.2015, Annexure P.8, this Court stayed the eviction of the petitioner from the official accommodation. Later on, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file application before the Chandigarh Bench of CAT vide order dated 29.7.2015, Annexure P.9. Vide order dated 29.2.2016, Annexure P.10, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction because the petitioner was engaged as Senior Project Fellow and he did not belong to service or post as defined in Sec. 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short, "the CAT Act"). According to the petitioner, he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the respondents nor he was served any notice before terminating his services. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner.
(3.)A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 wherein it has been inter alia stated that the petitioner had not submitted six monthly reports. He submitted the same only in response to the letter dated 8.5.2015 which were not found to be satisfactory. The deployment of the petitioner was purely temporary and on contract basis subject to renewal as mentioned in the offer of appointment. Thus, no hearing was required before terminating the contract. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.