LAWS(DLH)-2003-4-7

SUDHEER SRIVASTAVA Vs. DIRECTOR AIIMS

Decided On April 28, 2003
SUDHIR SRIVASTAVA Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR, AIIMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the difference of pay to the petitioner for the period from 13.11.1990 to 31.3.1992 as LDC and 1.4.1992 to 30.11.1998 as UDC and also to regularise the service of the petitioner from 13.11.1990. The petitioner was engaged as a Lower Division Clerk on ad hoc basis on a project funded by outside funding agency. The aforesaid engagement of the petitioner continued upto 31.3.1992. The petitioner was thereafter engaged as Upper Division Clerk on the same project from 1.4.1992, which continued upto 30.11.1998. Thereafter the aforesaid project was taken over by the respondent institute whereupon the petitioner underwent a process of selection/recruitment for the post in question and he was recruited on regular basis in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk. The aforesaid project was taken over by the institute under memo dated 24.8.1992 with effect from 29.1.1983. Since the petitioner was paid only a consolidated salary for the period from November 1990 to 31.3.1992 and thereafter as UDC also on a consolidated salary from 1.4.1992 to 30.11.1998, the petitioner has filed this petition claiming regularisation in the said post from 13.11.1990 along with the benefit of the difference of salary between the consolidated salary and regular salary on scale.

(2.) The petitioner was initially engaged on a consolidated salary on ad hoc basis on the project funded by the Department of Science and Technology. The said project was, however, taken over by the Institute under memo dated 24.8.1992 with effect from 29.1.1983

(3.) It is the specific case of the respondents that when the petitioner was initially engaged on ad hoc basis, he was so engaged only for a short period without following the process of proper selection/ recruitment for the post in question. It is only after the said project was taken over by the Institute, the petitioner was recruited on regular basis as LDC after he had undergone the process of selection/recruitment for the post in question. It is, however, admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit that after the project was taken over by the AIIMS under the memo dated 24.8.1992 with effect from 29.1.1983, the staff who were engaged in accordance with the rules/regulations of the AIIMS were taken over on the strength of AIIMS from the date of taking over of the project or regular appointment, whichever is later. In support of the said contention, the original records were placed before me for my perusal.