DR. BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, Dr. Bipin Chandra Lakhera, the petitioner herein, made a prayer for regularisation of his ad hoc appointment in the post of Research Assistant on and from 18th February 1984 or from 24th August 1985 with retrospective effect with all related service benefits like seniority in the grade, fixation of pay scales, promotion etc., coupled with a prayer for declaring the regularisation of his services in the post of Research Assistant with effect from 5th January 1996 as illegal, mala fide and discriminatory. The petitioner also sought for his promotion in the post of Assistant Research Officer with retrospective effect, i.e. from 5th December 1988 or from 20th October 1990 or from 14th November, 1990 when his juniors Dr. M.D. John, Dr. Swatantra Prakash and Dr. (Mrs.) Anita Sharma were promoted to the said post of Assistant Research Officer instead of benefit from 5th January, 1996 when the petitioner was promoted/upgraded as Assistant Research Officer, in short A.R.O., by contending, inter alia, that he was initially appointed as Research Assistant in Homeopathy under the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, in start C.C.R.H., on ad hoc basis vide, order dated 3rd February 1984 as in Annexure P1 to the writ petition and joined the service on 18th February 1984 and when he was in service as Research Assistant continuously from the month of February 1984, many candidates were called for interview for appointment to the said post of Research Assistant on regular basis which was being held already by him and that interview was fixed on 24th August 1985 and the petitioner being qualified for the said post and he was actually working in the same post on adhoc basis, he also applied for the said post in the Clinical Research Unit at Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, but he was not allowed to appear in the interview on the ground that he did not obtain any "No Objection Certificate" from the concerned Employment Exchange. According to the petitioner, there was no such necessity to obtain any such "No Objection Certificate" from the authority concerned but with due abundant caution the petitioner wrote to the Employment Exchange authority for issuance of "No Objection Certificate" but the Employment Exchange did not issue certificate to him and this fact was duly intimated to the concerned authority by the petitioner before the date of interview. Being dissatisfied with the action of the authority the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5358 of 1985 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench questioning the validity of the selection and made a prayer for allowing him to continue in the post before the Hon'ble High Court and the High Court granted the stay order thus permitting the petitioner to continue in the said post of Research Assistant, i.e., the post which he was holding. However, the said writ petition was finally disposed of on the ground that in the meantime, the services of the writ petitioner in the post of Research Assistant were regularized with effect from 5th January 1996. Thereafter, he was posted to Clinical Research Unit (T), Gangtok and the petitioner joined his office at Gangtok. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that he joined his office at Gangtok on 13th March, 1992 as Adhoc Research Assistant upon his transfer from Clinical Research Unit (T), Ranchi, Bihar and he has been holding the post of Assistant Research Officer, in short A.R.O. from 22nd December, 1995 at Gangtok and in the meantime, by an order dated 10th January, 1996 as in Annexure-P5 to the writ petition, the ad hoc post of Research Assistant held by the petitioner was upgraded as A.R.O. with effect from 22nd December 1995 along with 39 other Research Assistants some of whom were working on ad hoc basis and some working on regular basis and thereafter, the services of the writ petitioner as A.R.O. were regularized with effect from 5th January 1996 under a related order dated 16th February 1996 as in Annexure-P6 to the writ petition and pursuant to the said order dated 16th February 1996 regularizing the services of the writ petitioner, he became A.R.O. on and from 22nd December 1995. The main grievance of the writ petitioner as alleged in the writ petition is that the petitioner was/is entitled to get all the service benefits like regularisation, seniority, promotion etc. from the date of the initial appointment on and from 18th February 1984 on which he joined the service as Research Assistant on ad hoc basis which was denied by the respondents authorities despite the representation(s) and legal notices.

(2.) Supporting the case of the writ petitioner, Mr. A. Moulik, learned counsel contended that the petitioner had uninterrupted and continued service in the grade of Research Assistant on and from 18th February, 1984 on which he has joined his service on ad hoc basis till the date of regularisation of his service with effect from 5th January 1996 by virtue of the related order dated 16th February 1996 as in Annexure-P6 to the writ petition and during this service period, he has been allowed annual increments, to cross efficiency bar and to allow him to subscribe to Contributory Provident Fund and General Provident Fund and his past ad hoc service in the grade of Research Assistant for the period from 18th February 1984 to 4th January 1986 has been taken into account for pension vide office letter dated 10th June 1997 and in view of it, his appointment in the post of Research Assistant cannot be termed as stop-gap arrangement or fortuitous appointment and that being the position, such continued service of the writ petitioner on ad hoc basis should be counted for the purpose of seniority in the grade of Research Assistant and for the purpose of service benefit like promotion etc. In this regard, Mr. A. Moulik, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court rendered in :

(3.) The learned counsel went on to contend that the respondents-authority ought to have promoted the petitioner in the post of Assistant Research Officer with retrospective effect from 5th December 1988 or, from 20th October 1990 or, from 14th November, 1990 when his contemporary Dr. M.D. John, Dr. Swatantra Prakash and Dr. (Mrs.) Anita Sharma, i.e. the respondent Nos. 16, 21 and 22 respectively were promoted to the said post, thus counting the seniority of the writ petitioner in the grade of Research Assistant with effect from 18th February 1984 but, such benefits have been denied to the writ petitioner by the respondents authority without any justification. Supporting the case of the writ petitioner, Mr. Moulik, learned counsel had relied upon all the pleas and statements made in writ petition, rejoinder as well as supplementary affidavits. It is also argued that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of appointment and promotion inasmuch as his seniority position in the grade of Research Assistant had been ignored by the authority concerned which according to Mr. Moulik, learned counsel, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.