Delhi High Court
Prof (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 September, 2019
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 17.09.2019
+ W.P.(C) 9495/2019
PROF (DR.) J. SUNDARESAN PILLAI ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Romy Chacko, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI
with Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan,
Advocate for R1,2 &3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
2. Some facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this writ
petition are that the petitioner started his career as a Scientist at CSIR-
NISCAIR in the year 1992. The age of retirement for scientists in the
Ministry of Agriculture was increased from 60 years to 62 years w.e.f.
13.10.2003 and the age of retirement for scientists in ICMR was also
increased to 62 years.
3. The petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2019. Subsequently he made
an application dated 10.04.2019 to respondents Nos. 1 & 2 for extension of
service, relying upon a policy which lays down the criteria for extension/re-
employment as per CSIR Rules, Regulations and Procedures (Volume II), a
copy of which has been placed on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
following paragraphs of the policy which read as under:
"(23.4.9) Criteria of Extension/re-employment-
Extract From Chapter XX of "hand Book for
Personnel Officers", Deptt. Of Personnel And A.R.
Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi.
(1) xxx
(2) Extension of service/re-employment can be
justified only in very rare and exceptions
circumstances. Even in such cases, 60 years of age
should be the deadline for non-scientific/non-
technical posts and 62 years in the case of
scientific/technical personnel. This should not be
construed to mean that extension of service/re-
employment can be granted to non-scientific/non-
technical personnel upto the age of 60 years and to
scientific/technical upto the age of 62 years more or
less as a matter of course. The overriding
consideration for the grant of extension of
service/re-employment is that it must be clearly in
public interest and in addition satisfy one of the
following two conditions :-
(i) that other officers are not ripe enough to
take over the job or
(ii) that the retiring officer is of outstanding
merit.
Test (i) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in
particular specialization, or if it is not possible to
find a suitable successor or if the officer is engaged
on a work or project of vital importance which is
likely to produce results in a year or two...."
5. Counsel for the petitioner also draws attention to the ACR gradings
of the petitioner to show that the same are outstanding for the past 7 years.
Reliance is also placed on the recommendation made by the Director, CSIR-
NISCAIR which reads as under :
"Dr. J. Sundaresan Pillai is the key functionary of
the countrywide climate change project
conceptualized and implemented by him under
CSIR-NISCAIR in larger public and national
interest. Therefore, his active services are essential
for not only continuity but also taking it to logical
conclusion as no such expertise is available in the
Institute; hence extension of his service in current
position is strongly recommended."
6. Learned counsel submits that with regard to the ACRs and the
recommendation made by the Director, CSIR-NISCAIR, the criteria and
requirements of clause (2) of the policy would stand satisfied as the retiring
officer is of outstanding merit. He submits that as far as sub-clause (i) of
clause (2) of the policy is concerned, at the relevant time there was no
officer ready to take-over the job.
7. In view thereof, counsel prays that the order of the Tribunal be set-
aside and direction be issued to respondent No. 3 to grant extension to the
petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that as per the policy
extension of service/re-employment can be granted only in very rare cases
and in exceptional circumstances. It is submitted that it is incorrect to say
that no officer is ready to take over the job. Counsel has handed-over Office
Memorandum dated 10.04.2019 whereby the job in question was assigned to
Dr. T.K. Jana, Principal Scientist, CSIR-NISCAIR with immediate effect.
He submits on instructions that Dr. T.K. Jana has since taken-over charge of
CCI section/unit. Counsel submits that they do not dispute that the petitioner
is an outstanding scientist; however the date of superannuation is fixed and
grant of extension is not a matter of right but would depend on the
circumstances.
9. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal and thus do not find any ground to interfere by
way of the present writ petition.
10. However, as prayed, in case a representation is made by the petitioner,
the respondents would consider the same within a period of six weeks in the
light of the extension policy. Having said so, we make it clear however that
filing of the representation would not give a fresh cause of action to the
petitioner.
11. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
j
