KISHAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner impugns the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No.1236/2005 dated 20th February, 2006 dismissing the Original Application and the order dated 4th May, 2006 passed in Review Application No. 71/2006 and M.A. No. 742/2006 in O.A. No. 1236/2005 dismissing the Review Application filed by him before the Tribunal. Petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking the quashing of circular dated 30th September, 2004 whereby he claimed that he was terminated from services by the respondent. He also sought reinstatement as Group 'D' Contingency paid employee of the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DGRI) with effect from 1.10.2004 and also sought a direction that he should be continued in service till his services are regularized. He further sought the creation of a vacancy so that he could be accommodated, and claimed wages for August, 2004 and from 12th September, 2004 to 30th September, 2004

(2.) Petitioner claims that he was engaged on contract basis with effect from 10th August, 1999 to 30th September, 2004 He claims that he completed more than 240 days in each year yet his services were terminated vide circular dated 1st October, 2004 without giving him any show cause notice, much less an enquiry. He states that his termination was punitive and as it was not preceded by an enquiry, it ought to be quashed. Petitioner seeks regularization under a scheme dated 7.6.1988 which he claims is reiterated in O.M. dated 10th September, 1993. He also claimed that he was not working on contract basis and he was a direct employee of the respondent/DGRI.

(3.) Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had been engaged on contract basis which had expired on 16th September, 2004 and was not renewed thereafter. The respondent is an Intelligence gathering Organization and to prevent the unauthorized presence of the petitioner, who continued to be present in the office premises of the respondent despite the expiry of his contractual employment, the respondent issued the circular dated 30th September, 2004 The respondent claimed that all contractual employment had been directed to be discontinued by the Government as per instructions contained in circular F.No.C-18013/75/2003-AD.III B dated 10th March, 2004 The respondent stated that they were not employing any contractor workers and on need basis labour was being outsourced. The respondent also claimed that there was complete ban of engagement of casual/daily wagers as per communication dated 17.9.1991 and that Board's letter dated 30th March, 1992 only permits the engagement of persons on contract basis for dusting, sweeping of office premises and for the other petty works. The engagement of the petitioner on contract basis was only for the purpose of cleaning of office premises and other petty jobs. No show cause notice was required to be given or regular enquiry was required to be conducted for a contract worker like the petitioner. The respondents denied that the petitioner was employed as a driver. The log entries relied upon by the petitioner appeared to have been made by him while he was merely present in the vehicle for some other work which may have been allotted to him by the accompanying persons. The respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Mohan Pal and others (2002)4 SCC 573.