SANJAY KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought quashing of annexure-P.1, the letter of termination dated 6.9.1993 as violative of principles of natural justice with consequential directions against the respondent to confirm him in the post of Accounts Assistant retrospectively or on any other suitable post and also to direct the respondents to continue deploying him.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that on or around October, 1991, various posts of Accounts Assistants were available with respondent No.2 at its Head Office at New Delhi. The petitioner though termed as an Accounts Clerk was engaged against one of such posts of Accounts Assistant on daily wages and thereafter had been performing the work of Accounts Assistant. Except for the experience of three years in accounting, he had the requisite qualifications for being appointed regularly against the post of Accounts Assistant. He was informed that appointment was being made against the post of Accounts Assistant but on daily wages designated as Accounts Clerk. On attaining an experience of about 1-1/ 2years, he was assured that he shall be absorbed by the Board in its regular service. The petitioner on such assurance had continuously been working with respondent No.2 ever since the date of his engagement i.e. 8.10.1991, but in the record maintained by respondent No.2, artificial breaks of few days were shown, the practical experience agained by him has helped to effectively discharge his duties. As the petitioner has been working continuously for a fairly long time and had gain sufficient experience, respondent No.2 could not have abruptly terminated the services of the petitioner and that too with retrospective effect. Prior to the impugned communication dated 6.9.1993, there was no wisper from the respondent that the petitioner's services were not required. The work of Accounts Assistant in the office of respondent No.2 cannot be stated to be non-perennial in nature. Though initial qualification of possessing experience may be a factor to be reckoned with at the time of initial entry into service, had become eligible for the post of Accounts Assistant, both in respect of the number of days of service rendered by him as also the educational qualifications as well as three years experience in the field, as is required by the respondent. The petitioner learnt that there were 11 sanctioned posts of Accounts Assistant of which only 5 had been filled. Vacancies exist. No person has been engaged on permanent basis thereafter and since the petitioner is eligible for being permanently absorbed, the respondents deserve to be directed to absorb him against the said post. The petitioner's termination, it is alleged, was actuated by improper motive to prevent him from being made permanent in the service and another person had been appointed on daily wage basis for the same job, which the petitioner had been performing. As such the petitioner's termination was illegel.

(3.) The respondents in their reply stated that the petitioner was specifically engaged on daily wage basis for clerical job with clear understanding that such appointment will not entitle him to claim any permanent absorption on any post in the Board. Appointment to any post in the Board on regular basis is made in accordance with the Service Rules. Terms and conditions of employment are governed by the Regulation framed pursuant to Section 12(3A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The method of recruitment/qualifications/ experience etc. for the purpose of recruitment of the staff is governed by the said Regulations, which are known as Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution [Method of Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service including Scales of Pay of Officers (other than Member Secretary) and other Employees] Regulations, 1980. The petitioner had not been recruited in accordance with the service regulations, governing the service conditions of employees. He was deployed purely on daily wage basis for temporary nature of work and has no right to claim regularisation in the service of the respondents. Initially, he was engaged for a period of 88 days from 8.10.1991 to 3.1.1992. With intermittent breaks he was thereafter continued to be deployed on daily wage basis, as there was requirement of additional hands to meet day to day contingencies. The petitioner was fully aware about the terms and conditions of his engagement. After the contingency of work was over, the engagement of the petitioner was discontinued.