Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 74
High Court Of Delhi
CHHOTE LAL - Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 7264 of 1999
Decided On : 01/17/1995
N.B.Joshi, SUNITA BHARDVAJ, Umesh Sharma
Research Associates appointed under a scheme formulated by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) are entitled to continue in service for the duration of the project/scheme and cannot be terminated before the completion of the project except in cases of inefficiency or indiscipline.
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT - RESEARCH ASSOCIATES - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - SCHEME FORMULATED BY INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH - CONTINUANCE OF EMPLOYMENT - DISCRIMINATION - ARBITRARINESS - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were appointed as Research Associates under a scheme formulated by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The scheme provided that Research Associates would be employed for the duration of the project/scheme and their employment would not be considered regular. The petitioners were initially appointed in 1986 and 1987. In 1993, the Project Director of ICAR wrote to the University where the petitioners were working, stating that certain changes were being made in the staff position and that the services of surplus staff would be redeployed. The University terminated the services of the petitioners and others on the ground that the respective units were being closed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to continue in service as the project was still ongoing and they were necessary to complete the project. The Court also found that the termination of the petitioners' services was discriminatory as 22 out of 25 Research Associates had been re-employed or provided employment in different organizations. The Court further held that the financial implications of continuing the petitioners' services would have to be borne by the respondents 1 and 2 (ICAR and the University) as the continuance of the petitioners' service was in compliance with the scheme formulated by the ICAR.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to continue in service even though the unit where they were working was being closed. 2. Whether the termination of the petitioners' services was discriminatory.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to continue in service as the project was still ongoing and they were necessary to complete the project. The Court relied on para 16 of the scheme formulated by ICAR, which stated that "a Research Associate shall be selected by a Selection Committee to be constituted by the Principal Investigator or the University/institution in accordance with Rules in existence there, or by the Management Committee in case of ICAR institute. The appointment will not be a regular employment, but restricted in the duration of the project/scheme". The Court held that this provision meant that the petitioners could not be terminated before the completion of the project except in cases of inefficiency or indiscipline. 2. The Court held that the termination of the petitioners' services was discriminatory as 22 out of 25 Research Associates had been re-employed or provided employment in different organizations. The Court held that this showed that the petitioners had been singled out for termination without any正当理由.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of termination, and directed the petitioners to be continued in service by posting them in appropriate service. The Court clarified that the petitioners need not be paid any salary from the date of their termination till the date of the judgment.
( 1 ) THE petitioners were appointed as Researchassociates in terms of a scheme formulated by Indian Council of Agriculturalresearch. The scheme is REFERRED TO as general Guidelines for the formulation,processing, scrutiny, sanction, implementation and evaluation of research schemesto be financed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research from its agriculturalproduce cess funds. Para 16 of this scheme states that "a Research Associate shallbe selected by a Selection Committee to be constituted by the Principal Investigatoror the University/institution in accordance with Rules in existence there, or by themanagement Committee in case of ICAR institute. The appointment will not be aregular employment, but restricted in the duration of the project/scheme".
( 2 ). Initially the petitioners were appointed somewhere in the year 1986 and1987. There were similar other appointees as well at different places. When therewas a proposal or actual action terminating the services of these Research Associates writ petitions were filed in Allahabad High Court and ultimately the mattercame up before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9865-1971 /1991. The Supreme Court allowed the petition. The Supreme Court pointed outthat once someone is inducted into a research project in any of the three categoriesthere can be no justification to keep him out before the project is completed exceptin cases of inefficiency or indiscipline. The Supreme Court directed that all thethree categories of the people associated with the research programmes shouldhave employment co-terminus with the projects.
( 3 ). Subsequently, the petitioners were re-employed following the aforesaidorder of the Supreme Court. However, in January, 1993 the Project Director of theicar wrote to the G. B. Pant University which is the third respondent here statingthat-
"the 8th plan proposal of cropping systems research project has been approved by the Planning Commission. The number of main and sub-centres ofcropping systems research and on farm units approved for each Agriculturaluniversity during VIII Plan is endosed (Annexure-I ). The Council has madecertain changes in staff position provided at main centres and on-farm unitsas indicated in Annexure-II. These changes will come into effect from 1/04/1993. I request you to take necessary action to redeploy the surplus staff inthe university. You are also requested to take necessary action to fold up theactivities of the centres decided to be closed. "
( 4 ). Annexure-I gave the existing and approved centres in different Universities/organisations. As against the third respondent University at Pant Nagaragainst the existing main centre, sub-centre and on-farm unit approved during 8thplan gave the figures one against the main centre and one against the on-farm unitomitting the sub-centre, while earlier under on-farm unit two units were permitted. Annexure-II to this letter gave the details of staff position. I find no reference tothese Research Associates in this Annexure-II. The third respondent Universitythought it fit to terminate the services of the petitioners and others on the groundof the respective units being closed. The impugned orders of termination statedthat as per the letter of the Project Director dated 28. 1. 1993 some posts in the 8th fiveyear plan have been curtailed and there is a reference also to another letter of theproject Director dated March 10/15, 1993 about closing down of the unit ofcropping system project working at Ghaziabad. Thereafter there is some referenceto the High Court s order (which obviously should have been the Supreme Courtorder) and the meeting held by the Managing Council and then states that theservices of the. petitioners were terminated w. e. f. 31. 3. 1993. The petitionersquestion this order of termination on several grounds. Mainly it was contendedthat even though the unit might have been closed the project is still not completedand the R
