KAILASH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Floor Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.330-480/- when he responded to an advertisement notice dated 2.4.84 issued by respondents for filling up the post of Production Assistant in the higher scale of Rs.425-750/- (pre-revised). He Was selected and respondents issued memorandum dated 20.12.84 offering him the post of Production Assistant subject to some conditions which provided that his appointment in the first instance would be on a long term monthly renewable casual contract of six months pending completion of some formalities whereafter he would be considered for appointment as a Staff Artist on contract upto three years in the aforesaid pay scale and further contract renewal would be decided by mutual agreement. It was also stipulated that he would be on probation for two years and would have to resign from his existing job if he was in Government service

(2.) Petitioner claims that since he was working in the same department next door, he joined his duties on 21.12.84 and was deployed as a Production Assistant by Office Order dated 7/6/85 passed by Deputy Director (Programmes). He asserts that he continued to discharge the duties of Production Assistant thereafter but was not paid the salary attached to this post. He made representations for this which went unheeded and then filed LCA No.1437/87, 1/91, 20/93 under Section 33(c)(2) of IDA claiming arrears of salary. He was advised to withdraw these and to file OA No.2290/93 before CAT which was withdrawn by him because of the pendency of LCAs. He later withdrew these LCAs also and filed OA No.109/94 for regularisation of his services on the post of Production Assistant and for arrears of his salary which was dismissed by impugned order.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that since he was working under the same roof in Doordarshan and after he was assigned the duties of Production Assistant on the very next day, he took it easy and did not care to complete formalities of submitting a joining report or his resignation from the post of Floor Assistant nor did respondents insist upon these at any stage. In any case, he was not required to resign as it would have terminated his lien on the post of Floor Assistant. He was also not supposed to satisfy other conditions/formalities contained in memo of offer being a Doordarshan employee.