RESERVED ON 29.08.2024 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD This is the 04^th day of September, 2023.

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 330/00498 of 2019 HON’BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER (A)

Kavita Singh wife of Late Nayak Pancham Singh, Resident of Chinlikh Gaharwar, Rajpur Aamghat, District Mirzapur.

……….Applicant VERSUS

1. Union of India through Secretary/Director Central Organization ECHS Adjacent Generous Branch IHQ of MOD Maude Lines, Delhi Cantt., 110010.

2. Commander Regional Center ECHS Sub Area Allahabad Cantt.

3. Officer in Charge ECHS Varanasi Cantt., Varanasi.

4. Colonel S.B. Singh Officer in Charge ECHS Varanasi Cantt.

Varanasi.

5. Jyoti Tripathi wife of Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, Resident of Pratappur Post Pasasis Chunar, District Mirzapur.

……………..Respondents Advocate for the Applicant Shri Anil Kumar Singh Shri Pankaj Srivastava Shri Gyanandra Singh Advocate for the Respondents Shri M.K Sharma Shri Jai Singh

O R D E R

BY JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)

By the present original application, applicant is seeking to quash the impugned order dated 6.5.2019 passed by respondent No. 5 i.e. Officer In charge ECHS Varanasi Cantt. Varanasi. He has prayed to direct the respondent department not to terminate the services of the applicant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant was appointed on the post of Female Attendant under the control of respondent No.3 on contract basis from 17.2.2014 to 12.07.2015 at ECHS PC Jaunpur. Thereafter the applicant was transferred to Mirzapur w.e.f. 13.07.2015 and since then she is continuing as a female attendant as ECHS PC Mirzpur. Vide order dated 26.2.2019, applicant has been informed that her appointment as female attendant for ECHS Mirzapur on contractual basis is reviewed from 1.3.2019 to 17.5.2019. Without any cogent reason, respondent No.4 illegally and arbitrarily convened an interview in the month of February 2019- 2020 and directed the applicant to appear before the Board. Vide impugned order dated 06.05.2019, applicant has been informed that since applicant has not been selected in the walking interview, her contractual appointment was terminated w.e.f. 18.5.2019. Against the aforesaid order, applicant made a detailed representation dated 6.5.2019 to the respondents for redressal of her grievance but no heed was paid by the respondents and it is still pending for consideration. Hence, applicant has filed this OA seeking aforementioned reliefs.

3. We have heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh and Gyanandra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the respondent No.4 has issued termination order dated 06.05.2019 against the applicant which is arbitrary and malafide intention, hence it is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that she has been serving with the respondents to the entire satisfaction of their superior officers, and has her unblemished service record. Learned counsel further argued that services of the applicant were terminated on the ground that she has not qualified in the walking interview. He contended that in the entire Rules for the contractual appointment in the ECHS, there is no such provision to take interview who is still working. It was alleged, that the action of the respondents, to replace the applicant with another candidate is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the proposition of law, i.e., one set of contractual employee cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee, except the employee already employed, are not working satisfactorily. Thus, on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and respondents may be directed to reengage the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following case laws:-

(i) Manish Gupta and another etc. Vs. President, Jan Bh