Delhi High Court
Upendra Singh vs Kuldeep Singh Sachdeva & Ors on 22 June, 2020
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.06.2020
+ CONT.CAS(C) 312/2020 & CM APPL.13004-13005/2020
UPENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
KULDEEP SINGH SACHDEVA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner has filed the present petition contending that
respondents have committed breach of final order dated 03.11.2014 in
W.P(C) 1741/2014 titled Narinder Singh Ahuja and Ors vs. The
Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors, as also
order dated 12.03.2019 in W.P(C) 2444/2019 titled Narinder Singh
Ahuja and Anr vs. Union of India and Ors
3. Petitioner was appointed as Technical Consultant (Surveillance)
vide appointment letter dated 17.11.2017.
Cont.Cas(C) 312/2020 Page 1
4. The case of the petitioner is that since petitioner was appointed
by appointment letter dated 17.11.2017, in terms of the order dated
03.11.2014 in W.P(C) 1741/2014 (supra), petitioner cannot be
terminated from his services till currency of the RNTCP Scheme
Project in 2017.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that petitioner was
party to the Writ Petition (W.P(C) 2444/2019) and the Division Bench
of this Court by its order dated 12.03.2019 had categorically held that
respondent would be bound to follow the earlier decision in W.P(C)
1741/2014.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents
by their office orders dated 04.05.2020 have required all incumbents
to participate in the fresh selection process and by its office order
dated 16.06.2020 required the petitioner to give his option to continue
till 17.10.2020 failing which said office order shall be treated as a
notice and his contract shall be deemed to be terminated as per the
terms and conditions of the contract.
7. Mr. Digpaul, Central Government Standing Counsel, who
appears for the respondents on advance notice submits that petitioner
is a contractual employee having been appointed for the first time on
17.11.2017 and his contract had been extended for a period of one
year by order dated 31.10.2018 and then for a further period of one
year by order dated 07.11.2019.
Cont.Cas(C) 312/2020 Page 2
8. Learned counsel submits that by order dated 12.03.2019 in
W.P(C) 2444/2019, petitioner was given an option to either participate
in the fresh selection process or to continue under the existing
contract.
9. Learned counsel submits that since petitioner has opted not to
participate in the fresh selection process, petitioner can continue only
under the existing contract of his employment. He further submits that
the decision in the case of Narinder Singh Ahuja (supra) in W.P(C)
1741/2014 does not imply that petitioner can continue till the
conclusion of the RNTCP Scheme Project.
10. He submits that the direction in order dated 12.03.2019 in
W.P(C).2444/2019, was that petitioner would either continue in his
contract of employment or participate in the recruitment process. He
submits that the direction that respondents would be bound by the
earlier decision in Narinder Singh Ahuja (supra) implied that during
the continuation of the contract of the petitioner, petitioner would not
be terminated without being given an option to participate in the
selection process.
11. Learned counsel submits that since petitioner has opted not to
participate in the selection process, he cannot be permitted to continue
on the said post being a contractual employee.
12. By judgment dated 03.11.2014 in W.P (C) 1741/2014 Narinder
Singh Ahuja (supra), the Division Bench had inter-alia directed as
Cont.Cas(C) 312/2020 Page 3
under:-
"For the above reasons, this Court is of opinion that the
CAT erred in law, in holding that the petitioners could
not complain against the discontinuance of their
contractual employment. Accordingly, a direction is
issued to the respondents to continue the petitioners in
contractual employment on annual renewal basis, till the
currency of RNTCP Scheme project in 2017. An
appropriate consequential order shall be issued by the
respondents within eight weeks from today."
13. It may be noticed that petitioner was not a party to the said
Petition and was not an employee originally under the said project.
Petitioner was recruited on contractual basis on 17.11.2017 and the
terms of contractual employment of the petitioner as noted in the
contract of appointment dated 17.11.2017 read as under:-
"2. The other terms and conditions of contractual
engagement are as under:-
a) He will be treated as Non-official and will
neither be entitled to any other service
benefits of the Government of India nor can
claim under any circumstances for his
regularization in Government of India.
b) The Contractual engagement is subject to
the execution of an Agreement between the
CTD and the employee as per the TOR.
c) This will be a full time engagement. He will
not derive any salary/allowances etc. from
any other sources.
d) The contract can be terminated by either
Cont.Cas(C) 312/2020 Page 4
side at fifteen days' notice or payment of 15
days salary in lieu of notice.
e) He is entitled for 12 days' casual leave in a
calendar year as per office order
no.A.660013/3/2014-TB(Pt.) dated
20.08.2014."
14. On extension of the contractual contract of the petitioner, the
same terms and conditions were made applicable by orders dated
31.10.2018 and 07.11.2019.
15. Subsequently, when respondents had sought option from all
contractual employees of their intention to participate in the new
selection process, petitioner approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal which dismissed the petition of the petitioner on the ground
that the same was pre mature as he had not made a representation.
Against the order of the Tribunal, petitioner approached this Court in
W.P(C) 2444/2019 titled Sh. Narinder Singh Ahuja & Anr (the
petitioner) vs. Union of India & Ors and the Division Bench by its
order dated 12.03.2019 noted that the grievance of the petitioner in
relation to office Memorandum dated 01.02.2019 calling for options
from the serving contractual employees was pre mature.
16. The Division Bench held that petitioners had to give the option
either to continue under the existing contract or to opt to participate in
the new selection process and it was for the petitioners to exercise
their option in the manner they think fit.
Cont.Cas(C) 312/2020 Page 5
17. The Division Bench clarified that it had not gone into any other
issue and disposed of the petition by giving petitioners three days time
to exercise the option to either participate in the new selection process
or to continue to serve under the existing contract.
18. The Division Bench, further, noticed the apprehension of the
petitioners that their services may be discontinued by engaging other
contractual appointees on their posts, and therefore reiterated the
earlier decision in W.P(C) 1741/2014 dated 03.11.2014 titled
Narinder Singh Ahuja and Ors vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare and Ors.
19. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned orders dated 04.05.2020 and 16.06.2020 asking the
petitioner to give an option to continue till 17.10.2020 failing which
the notice dated 16.06.2020 was to be considered as a notice period
and his contract would stand terminated as per the terms and
conditions of the contract, is in violation of the order dated 12.03.2019
in W.P(C) 2444/2019, is misplaced.
20. The office memorandum dated 16.06.2020 records that the
Director General Health Services Inquiry Committee has reported that
most of the candidates who have been appointed as consultants do not
meet the requisite qualification or requisite experience. It is noticed in
the said order that fresh recruitment process for all physicians under
purview of DGHS Inquiry Committee has been proposed. The DGHS
Inquiry Committee has also reported that petitioner does not possess
Cont.Cas(C) 312/2020 Page 6
the qualification as well as experience for the post of Technical
Officer (Surveillance) on which petitioner has been appointed.
21. The appointment orders of the petitioner relied on by the
petitioner dated 17.11.2017, 31.10.2018 and 07.11.2019 clearly
stipulate that the petitioner is purely appointed on contractual basis
and the contract is for a period of one year. The term also provides
that the contract can be terminated by either side at 15 days notice or
payment of 15 days salary in lieu of notice.
22. Order dated 12.03.2019 in W.P(C) 2444/2019 specifically notes
that the apprehension raised by the petitioners was that their services
would be discontinued by engaging other contractual appointees on
the posts on which they were working. In that context the Division
Bench clarified that respondents would be bound by the earlier
decision in W.P(C) No.1741/2014.
23. In my view, by order dated 12.03.2019, the Division Bench
restrained respondents from appointing other employees on
contractual basis on the post on which the petitioner was working as a
contractual employee. Said order did not in any manner restrain the
respondents from initiating selection process for making regular
appointments to the posts on which the petitioner was working as a
contractual employee.
24. The DGHS Inquiry Committee report clearly holds that
petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification or experience for
Cont.Cas(C) 312/2020 Page 7
the post for which the petitioner has been appointed as a contractual
employee.
25. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes that there is
any Inquiry Committee report holding that petitioner does not possess
the qualification as well as experience for the post of Technical
Officer (Surveillance), however said issue does not arise for
consideration in this petition as Petitioner has chosen not to participate
in the selection process.
26. Order dated 12.03.2019 in W.P(C) 2444/2019 also gave an
opportunity to the petitioner to exercise his option either to participate
in the new selection process or to continue under the existing contract.
Petitioner has chosen not to participate in the selection process. This
implies that petitioner has accepted all the terms and conditions of his
contract and chosen to continue under the existing contract.
27. The expression "existing contract" used in order dated
12.03.2019 in W.P(C) 2444/2019 cannot be interpreted to mean the
"RNTCP Scheme Project in 2017" as used by the Division Bench in
its order dated 03.11.2014 in W.P(C) No.1741/2014.
28. Petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that petitioner has to
continue till currency of the RNTCP Scheme Project in 2017. Order
dated 12.03.2019 categorically uses the expression "the existing
contract" which implies the existing contract of the petitioner with the
Respondents and not the "RNTCP Scheme Project in 2017".
Cont.Cas(C) 312/2020 Page 8
29. Since the petitioner has opted not to participate in the new
selection process, petitioner would be governed by the terms and
conditions of his contractual employment as recorded in order dated
07.11.2019. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the impugned
orders are in violation of the conditions of his contract with the
respondent.
30. In my view, there is no wilful breach of order dated 12.03.2019
in W.P(C) 2444/2019 and order dated 03.11.2014 in W.P(C)
1741/2014 on the part of the respondents. No ground is made out for
initiating any proceedings against the Respondents.
31. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
32. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to the learned counsel for the Parties through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JUNE 22, 2020
rk
Cont.Cas(C) 312/2020 Page 9
