Delhi High Court
Dr. Radha Dubey vs Government Of National Capital ... on 21 December, 2009
Author: Vipin Sanghi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.13988/09
% Date of Decision: 21.12.2009
DR. RADHA DUBEY .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.P.Singh with Mr. C. R. Mishra,
Advocates.
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL .... Respondents
TERRITORY & ORS.
Through: Mr.Rajiv Nanda with Mr. Zeaul Haq,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of Local No.
papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be No.
reported in the Digest?
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
*
1. The petitioner assails the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in
O.A. No.2745 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the said
Original Application.
2. The petitioner was employed under the Health and Family
Welfare Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi as medical officer on
contract basis vide order dated 12.01.1996 for a period of one year.
It appears that her services were continued year after year, by
extending period of the contract. The petitioner was, however,
granted the pay scale and allowances as admissible to regular
employees in equivalent posts.
3. The petitioner went on leave for a period of 20 days with
effect from 03.04.2006. This leave had been duly sanctioned by the
Competent Authority. While still on leave, the petitioner sought
extension of leave upto 22.05.2006. Yet again, she sought further
extension of her leave on 19.05.2006 for another two months. On
08.06.2006, she again applied for extension of leave. However, she
was informed that her leave had not been sanctioned. The
petitioner communicated her permanent address at which
correspondence may be addressed to her. Respondent vide a
memorandum dated 13.06.2006, informed the petitioner that her
leave could not be extended by two months, due to exigency of
work. She was directed to join her duty immediately and she was
also warned that if she did not comply with the direction,
disciplinary action would be taken against her. On 16.06.2006, the
petitioner again requested for sanction of leave that she had
applied for, on the ground that she was attending to her mother,
who was suffering from parkinson‟s disease. On 19.07.2006, the
petitioner sought further extension of her leave by two months on
the same ground, as aforesaid. This request was rejected vide
letter dated 31.07.2006, directing her to join within 7 days, failing
which disciplinary action was threatened against her. The
petitioner, however, did not join her duty and did not report back
even till the passing of the order dated 27.11.2007, whereby the
petitioner‟s services were terminated.
4. It appears that the petitioner made yet another application for
extension of leave by two months on 12.01.2008. The same was
responded to by the respondents on 11.04.2008, informing her that
her services had already been terminated and that the termination
letter had been sent to her residential address as given by her,
which was returned by the postal authorities with the remark "that
after many visits to the house, it was found locked". Further
correspondence was undertaken by the parties and the respondents
stuck to their ground that the services of the petitioner had already
been terminated vide order dated 27.11.2007. The petitioner then
filed the aforesaid Original Application to challenge the termination
order. As aforesaid, the said Original Application has been
dismissed by the Tribunal.
5. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the services of the petitioner had been regularized and
therefore, her services could not have been terminated without
holding an enquiry against her. We do not accept this submission of
the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner had been granted the
salary admissible to the regular employees holding equivalent posts
by application of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟, it does
not mean that the services of the petitioner stood regularized. The
petitioner had placed reliance on the order passed in O.A. No.2552
of 1997, whereby parity in pay had been granted to her. In fact,
from a perusal of the relevant extract from the order passed in O.A.
No.2252 of 1997, which has been quoted in the impugned order, it
is clear that it was nobody‟s case that the services of the petitioner
had been regularized, either by virtue of the order of the Tribunal or
otherwise by the respondent. The said order, inter alia, stated:
"... ... ... They shall be deemed to have
continued in service from the date of their
first appointment till regular
appointments are made by the
respondents to these posts in
accordance with the extant rules and
instructions. In the circumstances of
the case respondents shall also
consider giving age relaxation to the
applicants in accordance with the rules,
if they are candidates before UPSC for
regular appointment to the extent of
the number of years of service they
have rendered on contract ad-hoc
basis." (emphasis supplied)
6. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the services of the
petitioner were contractual in nature and that she was not a regular
employee of the respondents. In any event, in view of the decision
of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v.
Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, the services of the petitioner
could not have been regularized unless a scheme is formulated for
the said purpose and which is in conformity with the said judgment.
7. The second submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the termination of the petitioner‟s services is, even
otherwise, a very harsh step taken by the respondent and they have
disregarded the circumstances of the petitioner, which were beyond
her control. It is argued that the petitioner‟s mother was suffering
from parkinson‟s disease and that is why the petitioner was not able
to attend to her duties. She also submits that she had about 89
days leave available when she applied for leave initially.
8. Though, there may have been compelling circumstances for
the petitioner to keep her away from her employment, that by itself,
in our view, cannot be a reason for her to remain on leave
indefinitely. Pertinently, initially, she had been sanctioned leave for
20 days only. Thereafter, she kept on seeking extension of her leave
by citing „domestic problem/ personal problem/ complex family
circumstances etc.‟ It appears that the respondents, beyond a
point, did not extend the leave and expressly required the petitioner
to join back her duties, but she did not do so. She continued to
disregard the orders and warnings of the employer. Even the
balance leave to her credit got exhausted. Communications sent to
her on the address furnished by her were returned back by the
postal authorities with the remark that the premises was found
locked.
9. The administration of any organization, and more so, of a
medical organization, cannot be efficiently run in public interest, if
the staff and employees appointed to render services remain on
indefinite leave. The whole system would crumble if on account of
such personal difficulties and for personal reasons, the
administration is expected to continue granting leave and extending
leave of employees for an indefinite period. The respondents
cannot be faulted for not extending the initial sanctioned leave for
20 days for about 19 months, which was the period that had
elapsed for which the petitioner did not report for work, by the time
termination order was passed. The petitioner cannot be permitted
to hold the administration to ransom only on account of her
personal difficulties and the respondent cannot be made to wait
indefinitely for the petitioner to re-join her services.
10. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
DECEMBER 21, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
sr
