Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Bhawani Singh, H.K.RATHOD
YAMINI J.DAVE - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR, I.U.C.A.A. - Respondent
L.P.A.466 of 1996
Decided On : 04/06/2004
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12 – Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 – Rule 6 (3) – Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 – Employment and Service matter – Probation – Back wages – Order of Termination – Challenged – Appellant alleges that respondents could not terminate her services, she having become permanent – Case of respondents is that appellant was in project employment her tenure was extended from time to time like other employees ultimately extension was not granted by impugned order, she ceased to be in service –Single Judge agreed with these submissions and held that appellant was a project employee, her stay in service extended from time to time, therefore, she was not entitled to continuance in service nor entitled to confirmation/ regularization – Appellant was appointed clerk-cum-typist by respondents vide appointment Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment letter pursuant to advertisement in INFLIBNET programme with IUCAA, an autonomous registered society established by University Grants Commission with head quarter – Candidates appointed to posts advertised were to remain on probation for period of one year from date of appointment and subject to service conditions and conduct rules approved by the governing body of the INFLIBNET/ IUCAA appellant joined the post of clerk-cum-typist 1991 with pay scale – By Office Order appellant was informed that her probationary period – Held, If employee succeeds in the fresh enquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from date of dismissal till reinstatement and to what benefits, if any, and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled – Reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of enquiry for failure to furnish the report, should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh enquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh enquiry is held – Above case was concerning an employee, who was found guilty in an enquiry but the report was not furnished to the employee and the show cause notice was not served on him – Court directed that appropriate orders should be passed regarding the back wages – Appellate Authority directed reinstatement of the respondent and held that he was not entitled to get backwages for the period he was out of service. It may be noticed that the respondent was removed from service without any enquiry and he was not even given a show cause notice prior to his dismissal from service – There was fault on the part of the employer in not following principles of natural justice. The relevant facts were considered and the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench ordered the payment of back wages – No merit in the appeal – Appellant is entitled to full backwages for interim period with all consequential service benefits – Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. (Paras 26 and 27)
( 1 ) IN this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment passed by Single Judge (Coram: M. S. Shah, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 11047 of 1994 dated January 10, 1996, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal may be narrated thus. The appellant was appointed clerk-cum-typist by the respondents vide appointment Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? letter dated September 9, 1991, pursuant to advertisement dated May 11, 1991, in INFLIBNET programme with IUCAA, an autonomous registered society established by the University Grants Commission with head quarter at Ahmedabad. The candidates appointed to the posts advertised were to remain on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment and subject to service conditions and conduct rules approved by the governing body of the INFLIBNET/ IUCAA. The appellant joined the post of clerk-cum-typist on September 11, 1991 with pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. By Office Order dated September 15, 1992, the appellant was informed that her probationary period stood closed from 10. 9. 1992 (AM ). The appellant proceeded on 90 days maternity leave from May 3, 1994 to July 31, 1994, sought through application dated May 2, 1994. She reminded respondents vide letter dated May 28, 1994, to sanction her the leave. The respondents sanctioned the leave vide order dated June 2, 1994. During the intervening period, the appellant submitted medical bills to the tune of Rs. 8,000/= which were sanctioned after reminders to that effect. Again, the appellant sought extension of maternity leave from August 1, 1994 to September 4, 1994 as per Rules applicable to Central Government employees. By Memorandum dated September 9, 1994, her services have been terminated. The appellant challenged her termination through Special Civil Application No. 11047 of 1994. However, same has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. During the pendency of Appeal, amendment is sought and some documents are placed on file.
( 3 ) THE appellant alleges that the respondents could not terminate her services, she having become permanent. Case of respondents is that the appellant was in project employment. Her tenure was extended from time to time like other employees. Ultimately, extension was not granted, therefore, by impugned order, she ceased to be in service. The Single Judge agreed with these submissions and held that the appellant was a project employee, her stay in service extended from time to time, therefore, she was not entitled to continuance in service nor entitled to confirmation/ regularization.
( 4 ) THROUGH this Appeal, order of Single Judge has been challenged. While deciding the Special Civil Application, the Single Judge did not decide the question as to maintainability of the petition on the ground that he dismissed the petition on merits. Therefore, we permitted the respondents to advance submissions on this question during the course of hearing and substantiate the preliminary objection raised by them in their reply-affidavit to the Special Civil Application. Therefore, before adverting to deciding the Appeal on merits, it is desirable to deal with the preliminary objection. The respondents simply state in the reply that petition is not maintainable since the respondents are not State/ other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Except making this statement, no material has been placed in justification thereof. Further, no decision has been cited in support of the claim. However, from perusal of the material available on record, it is crystal clear that IUCAA is an autonomous body and INFLIBNET is also an autonomous body by this time according to the counsel for respondents. This project is funded by University Grants Commission. Hundred percent funds are released by Union of India and University Grants Comm
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
