CENTRAL TIBETAN SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Central Tibetan Schools Administration has challenged the order dated 5th November, 2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi in T.A No. 813/2009 titled as Sh. Vinod Kumar v. Central Tibetan Schools Administration, quashing of order dated 4th April, 1996 and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent, however, declining the prayer of respondent for grant of wages and other consequential benefits during the intervening period.

(2.) The respondent had filed a writ petition in the High Court against the termination of his services first as a UDC by order dated 11th April, 1990 and later his services as a LDC by order dated 4th April, 1996 without conducting any enquiry and only by payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. In the writ petition filed by the respondent, he had sought quashing of both the orders with a direction for payment of salary, increments and all other allowances and benefits from the date of termination till the payment of amounts allegedly due to him with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The respondent had also prayed for regularization and confirmation of his services with effect from 11th May, 1990, the date from which he had reverted from the post of UDC to LDC.

(3.) This is not disputed that the respondent was appointed as a UDC on ad hoc basis in the petitioner society which is an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Human Resource Development. This is also not disputed that respondent was again appointed on ad hoc basis as a LDC after determination of his services by order dated 11th April, 1990 as a UDC. His appointment as a LDC was for a period of six months from 18th May, 1990 which was extended for several years by six months each. This is also admitted that during the period of his ad hoc appointment for six months each from time to time, he was called for an interview on 23rd August, 1992 and he was issued an offer of appointment as a LDC by order dated 28th August, 1992. This was also purely on temporary basis, but likely to continue and it was accepted by the respondent and the petitioner had issued an order dated 4th September, 1992 and the respondent was appointed as a LDC from 26th August, 1992 till further orders. The probation period of the respondent was also extended upto 25th August, 1995 by order dated 2nd March, 1995.