UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATISH CHANDRA UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a common judgment and order dated 16th December 1997 the learned tribunal has disposed of two matters, being O. A. 693 of 1996 and O. A. 942 of 1995. The parties are not concerned with O. A. 942 of 1995 since grievance, of the applicant, as mentioned, was redressed during pendency of the aforesaid matter. But the judgment and order, passed in O. A. 693 of 1995, has been assailed by Union of India as the learned Tribunal, by the aforesaid judgment and order, has given a declaration that the applicant, who is respondent before us, is deemed to have been appointed on ad hoc basis till he is regularised.

(2.) THE fact of the case is very short and simple. On and from August 1993 the applicant was appointed to the post of Engineer and Ship Survey in the general Services on ad-hoc basis on a pay of Rs. 3700/- per month in the scale of Rs. 3700-125-4700-150-5000. His appointment specifically was for a period of one year; with effect from the date he takes over charge of the post or till the date when the Union Public Service Commission's nominee joins duty, whichever is earlier. It was also mentioned that his appointment could be terminated at any time by month's notice given by either side.

(3.) THEREFORE, it is clear that the appointment was completely on temporary basis. By a letter dated 23rd November 1994, applicant's service was extended for a further period of six months from 15th of November 1994; by letter dated 29th March 1995, it was extended for a further period of six months from 18th May 1995 and by a letter dated 20th October 1995 extension was granted for further period of six months with effect from 18th November 1995 which was to expire on 17th May 1996. Unfortunately, before the aforesaid term expired, the applicant, while he was on duty met with an accident which disabled him to perform his duty. Thereafter, by a letter dated 28th May 1996 the respondent refused to grant extension beyond 17th May 1996. The aforesaid letter was preceded by another letter dated 29th March 1996 wherein it has been mentioned that the applicant will continue until 17th may 1996 or till submission of Medical Fitness Certificate whichever is earlier. Therefore, it is clear that it was a case of refusal to grant extension and not a case of termination.