CHAVANAPUZHA SASINDRAN Vs. INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a typist, is aggrieved by the order dated May 21,1991 by which his services were terminated, with effect from May 11, 1991 on the ground that "the work is greatly suffering during his absence..........." A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Typist on the recommendation of the Selection Board and "on behalf of Principal Investigators and Director General Indian Council of Medical Research........vide order dated November 27,1991. In this order it was specifically stated that "while employed in the institute you will be liable to be posted at any place, any time, under the control of the Institute." It was further mentioned that the petitioner shall be "governed by the rules and regulation of the Institute." The order also provided that the appointment will be temporary and could be terminated "on one month notice." The petitioner continued to work in the Institute till February 4,1991 when he proceeded on three weeks leave which was due to expire on February 25,1991. On account of the continued sickness of his father which was followed by the death of his child, the petitioner had to ask for repeated extensions of leave. The last request for extension of leave prior to the communication of the order dated May 21,1991 appears to have been made through the telegram which was received in the Institute on May 3,1991. This was for extension of leave up to the May 20th, 1991. Feeling that the continued absence of the petitioner was adversely effected the work, respondent No. 3 by order dated May 21, 1991 terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from May 11,1991.

(3.) Two written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. First is a short reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 in which it has been inter alias stated that respondent No. 1 "is a mere Registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1858 and is engaged in Bio-medical Research by funding research in Medical Colleges and Hospitals located in various parts of the country". It has further been averred that research project is entrusted to an eminent Scientist and that respondent No. 1 is not concerned with the appointment of staff etc. It has also been stated that the project of "Hospital Based Cancer Registry" was entrusted to respondent No. 3 in November, 1981 and had he is carrying on the research work on the said project ever since. It has also been averred that Resp. No. 1 reduces the extent of funding @ 25% after every 5 years tor each Cancer Registry Project and 25% expenditure is borne by the host institute i.e. respondent No. 2 in this case. On this premises it has been inter alia prayed that respondent No. 1 may be dropped from the array of the respondents.