Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5490
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Tarun Shridhar, A
Shri Kuldeep Kumar Malhotra, Shri Raj Karan Singh, Shri Sebastian Joseph, Shri Surinder Singh Rana, Shri Manoj Sharma, Shri Kishori Lal Bhatt, Shri Subhash Chand Gupta, Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Shri Kamal Singh Negi, Shri Ramesh Nautiyal, Shri Ramesh Kumar, Shri Suresh Chand Rastogi, Shri Prabhakar Pathak – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
O.A. No. 1678/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M.S. Reen
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Birbal
Contractual employees engaged for specified terms do not possess vested rights for indefinite continuation beyond their contract duration.
Headnote:This case involves contractual engagements of ex-servicemen as Typist-cum-Clerk by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), with appeals against termination leads to examining the legitimacy of the revised policy dated 05.12.2018. The tribunal ruled that contractual employees do not have a vested right to indefinite continuation, dismissing the application based on arguments that the revised policy was enacted without the competent authority's approval and applying universally to all consultants. Accordingly, the tribunal concluded that the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case arises from ex-servicemen's contracts with dda, highlighting engagement terms. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented concerning termination and engagement policies. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. court examines the applicability and effects of the revised policy. (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 4. judgment establishes that contractual rights cannot extend indefinitely. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. final ruling dismisses the application with no costs awarded. (Para 25 , 26) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
The applicants are Ex-Servicemen who retired from the Indian Army on completion of their normal tenure. After their retirement, they were engaged as Typist cum Clerk by the Delhi Development Authority on different dates in the year 2010 on contract basis.
2. The term of the contract was for a period of 6 months on a consolidated monthly remuneration, however, this term was extendable and at the same time, the letter of appointment stipulated that the contract may also be terminated at any time. The applicants continued on the basis of extension on the position of Typist cum Clerk till the year 2022 when a notice of termination was issued to them on 07.06.2022.
3. Aggrieved by the said notice, they have approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs :
I. To quash and set-aside the impugned orders dated 07.06.2022 (Annexure A-1 colly), restricting the contractual engagement of the applicants to the post of Typist-cum-Clerk upto 07.07.2022;
II. Quash and set aside the impugned policy dated 05.12.2018 (Annexure-A-1A);
III. Direct the respondents to issue necessary appointment orders for extension/engagement of Applicants Contractual services.
IV. Direct the respondents not to replace or substitute the Applicants (Contractual Typist-cum-clerks) unless by way of regular appointment;
V. Accord all consequential benefits.
VI. Award costs of the proceedings in favour of the applicants.
VII. Pass any other order/direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicants and against the respondents in the facts and circumstance of the case.
4. In the original OA, one of the reliefs as set forth in para 8 i.e. seeking a quashing of the policy dated 05.12.2018 was not sought for. However, subsequently, the applicants were allowed to amend the OA and in the amended OA apart from seeking the quashing notices of termination dated 07.06.2022, they have also sought the quashing of the policy dated 05.12.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants while tracing the history and background of the case submits that during the engagement of the applicants, they were being governed by the policy notified on 30.12.2017 which stipulated that the age limit of the Consultant would not be beyond 65 years. However, there was a provision that even this age limit of 65 years may be relaxed in public interest in deserving and exceptional circumstances.
6. This policy had been issued after obtaining the approval of the competent authority, in this case the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi who is the Chairman of DDA. However, the policy of 05.12.2018 has restricted the period of contract to only 5 years thus, adversely affecting the engagement of the applicants.
7. Learned counsel would argue that the policy notified on 05.12.2018 has been issued without the approval of the competent authority and draws attention to the concluding paragraph of the policy which states that the same is with the approval of the Vice Chairman / DDA. He submits that it deserves to be set aside on this sole ground itself, since this policy seeks to revise/amend as also supersede the policy notified with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor / Chairman DDA. A subordinate authority cannot overrule a policy or order issued by a senior authority and hence, it is bad in law.
8. Learned counsel further argues that if one were to go through the minutes of the high powered meeting which he has placed on record as Annexure A-5, it is apparent that the respondents ar
