Shri Harinder Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1027 Del

ORDER

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. Challenge is made in this writ petition to the order dated 15.1.2000 issued by the Medical Superintendent, Kasturba Hospital, informing the petitioner that his services as Driver would no longer be required after 31.3.2000 and that his services would stand terminated in the afternoon of 31.3.2000.

2. It is stated by the petitioner that the aforesaid order passed by respondent No.1 is illegal and without jurisdiction as the respondent No.1 cannot pass any order of termination of the petitioner in view of the fact that his services were already placed at the disposal of the Government of India namely the respondents No.2& 3 by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi way back on 31.3.1995 in terms of the order dated 29.3.1995 passed by respondent No.3 and also because the petitioner was continuously in service with respondents 2 & 3 till the date of filing of the writ petition.

3. Pursuant to his application dated 19.7.1994 followed by an interview held on 6.10.1994 the petitioner was appointed as against the post of a Jeep Driver in the Indian Council of Medical Research Project (in short ICMR Project) at Kasturba Hospital. In the aforesaid letter issued on 12.8.1994 it was stated that the aforesaid post was purely temporary and initially for a period of 3 months which could be extended up to one year depending on his work and conduct report and could be terminated any time by Medical Superintendent, Kasturba Hospital without assigning reason for the same after any length of his service. It was also stipulated in the said letter that the MCD or ICMR would have no responsibility of absorbing the petitioner back after the project is over or/termination. By an order dated 14.1.1995 the Medical Superintendent, Kasturba Hospital issued another letter informing the petitioner that as the ICMR project under which he was appointed as Driver w.e.f. 18.8.1994 was terminated w.e.f. 31.1.1995, the services of the petitioner would not be required beyond the aforesaid date.

4. It was contended by the petitioner in his writ petition that the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 28.2.1995 sent the aforesaid jeep vehicle to respondent No.2 and that the respondent No.1 by an order dated 29.3.1995 gave the approval of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for the re-allocation of the vehicle to the headquarters of the Department of Family Welfare for the officers for the Family Welfare work. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said re-location of the vehicle to the headquarters of the Family Welfare Department was Along with the Driver. It is also alleged that pursuant to the said order dated 29.3.1995 passed by respondent No.3/Government of India, the respondent No.1/Medical Superintendent, Kasturba Hospital directed the petitioner to report for duty at Headquarters of the Department of Family Welfare. It was alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that in the context of the aforesaid facts in would be apparent that though originally the petitioner was employed by the Medical Superintendent, Kasturba Hospital, being run by MCD the respondent No.1 in the year 1994 but w.e.f. 31.3.1995 the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of respondent No.3 namely - Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and that the petitioner had been continuously performing his duties in respect of the said Family Welfare Programme. It is alleged that since the petitioner is an employee of the respondents No.2 & 3 w.e.f. 31.3.1995 continuously for 5 years till the filing of the writ petition so after the lapse of 5 years the Medical Superintendent, Kasturba Hospital of MCD had no jurisdiction to pass my termination order like the aforesaid termination order dated 15.1.2000 terminating his services effective from 31.3.2000. The present writ petition was therefore, filed seeking for the aforesaid relief.

5. The respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the aforesaid order dated 15.1.2000 was issued to the petitioner and served on him in terms of the directions received from the ICMR Headquarters, the funding agency of the project as against which the petitioner was initially appointed as Jeep Driver. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the project in which the petitioner was initially appointed on the terms and conditions stated in the letter dated 12.8.1994 the Medical Superintendent, Kasturba Hospital is the in charge of the administrative side and in the capacity the decision of the termination was conveyed to the petitioner under due directions of ICMR Headquarters. A copy of the directions/order dated 3.12.1999 received from the ICMR Headquarters is placed on record as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit. It was also stated that the vehicle in question in respect of which the petitioner was appointed as the Driver belonged to respondent No.2/ICMR project and the salary of the petitioner and the POL were paid by the ICMR Headquarters and the establishment for the same existed at Kasturba Hospital and the entire funds were received from ICMR Headquarters and therefore, there was no involvement of respondent No.1. It was also stated that the project in respect of which the petitioner was appointed had come to an end and in this connection reference was made to the letter of the ICMR dated 3.12.1999 whereby the respondent No.1 was informed that a decision had already been taken to merge the modified district project with HRRC and therefore, the service of the Driver of modified district project were to be terminated on or before 31.3.2000. It was also stated that the ICMR was not in a position to regularise the services of modified district project driver including the petitioner. Pursuant to the said communication the impugned termination order dated 15.1.2000 was issued by respondent No.1.

6. The writ petition was listed before this court on 11.4.2001. It was contended on behalf of respondent No.2/ICMR that in view of the provisions of section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and in the light of the notification issued vesting jurisdiction on ICMR with the Central Administrative Tribunal any relief sought for by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in this court cannot be entertained. It was submitted that since the notification is issued in respect of respondent No.2 vesting the jurisdiction exclusively with the Central Administrative Tribunal the present writ petition cannot be proceeded with in the High Court as against the said respondent No.2. Taking notice of the aforesaid submission of the counsel appearing for respondent No.2, counsel appearing for the petitioner stated before the court that the names of respondents No.2 & 3 could be deleted from the array of the parties in view of the fact that he is challenging the order passed by the MCD in the present writ petition and therefore the present writ petition may be continued only as against respondent No.1. In terms of the aforesaid statement of the counsel appearing for the petitioner and in terms of his request the names of respondents 2 & 3 were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties by order dated 11.4.2001. Therefore, the present writ petition survives only so far the respondent No. 1 is concerned. In the present writ petition the petitioner has categorically stated that though originally the petitioner was employed by the Medical Superintendent, Kasturba Hospital being run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi/respondent No.1 in the year 1994 but w.e.f. 31.3.1995 the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of respondent No.3/Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and that the petitioner, therefore, had been continuously performing his duties in respect of the said Family Welfare Department. It is also stated that the petitioner had been an employer of respondents 2 & 3 w.e.f. 31.3.1995 till the date of filing of the writ petition continuously for 5 years.

7. In aforesaid specific statement made in the writ petition itself and the sequences of events placed by the petitioner in the writ petition make it crystal clear that if the petitioner could seek for any relief the same could be as against the respondents 2 & 3 and not against respondent No.1. The petitioner was initially appointed by the MCD pursuant to the offer made on 12.8.1994 but his services were terminated by the order dated 14.1.1995 and thereafter the petitioner cannot be said to be working with respondent No.1 as its employee. However, since the petitioner was initially appointed in connection with the project funded by the ICMR and since the Medical Superintendent, Kasturba Hospital was the in charge of the Administrative Side of the said project his services were terminated by respondent No.1 pursuant to the communication received by the said respondent No.1 from the ICMR dated 3.12.1999. This Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction at this stage as against respondents No.2 & 3 in view of the provisions of section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The project in which the petitioner was appointed is no longer with respondent No. 1 nor any fund in respect of the said project is being received by respondent No.1 from ICMr at present. The vehicle which the petitioner was driving is also not with the respondent No.1. The services were terminated by respondent No.1 at the behest of respondent No.2, the funding agency.

8. In view of the aforesaid position if there be any cause of action for the petitioner the same could be against the respondents No.2 & 3 and not against respondent No.1. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner as sought for in this writ petition, for the petitioner, if in any manner aggrieved and if he has any cause of action in the matter, is against the respondents No. 2 & 3 and therefore, this writ petition as against respondent No.1 stands dismissed but without any costs.