Punjab-Haryana High Court
Alipa vs Central Administrative Tribunal And ... on 21 January, 2025
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008285-DB
201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP
CWP-32829-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.01.2025
Alipa ...Petitioner
Vs.
Central Administrative Tribunal and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS.
MR JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. The challenge is to the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the CAT') dated 30.05.2018, whereby the
'OA' preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
appointed as Instructor in the Government Industrial Training Institute for
Women and she possessed the requisite qualification. Her appointment was
on contract basis and was engaged for different period
periods by giving her
artificial break of eight days.
It is stated that firstly the appointment was made on 12.08.2016.
Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were disengaged and after few days
break, fresh appointment letter was made on 229.08.2017, whereafter again
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008285-DB
CWP-32829-2018 (O&M) [2]
orders were issued on 08.03.2018, after giving eight days break. It is her case
that the earlier application filed by her, the CAT had disposed of vide order
dated 27.02.2018, holding it to be premature as the break in service had not
arisen at that stage.
However, since a fresh break in service was given by the
respondents, the petitioner preferred the 'OA' praying for allowing her to
continuously perform her duties. Learned counsel relied on the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rattan Lal and others
vs. State of Haryana and others 1985 (4) SCC 43 and Krishan Kumar vs.
UT Chandigarh and others 2004 (3) SLJ 227. Learned counsel submits that
the CAT has failed to take into consideration the said judgments and has
upheld the wrongful action of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the UT, Chandigarh and Director,
Technical Education submits that the petitioner is performing duties
continuously on contract basis and the petitioner is being continued on
contract basis from time to time and is not being replaced by another set of
contractual employee, therefore, there is no occasion for the petitioner to
approach this Court.
4. We have considered the submissions.
5. We find that while the said issue of replacement of a contractual
employee by another set of contractaul employee is not before us. The main
issue is with regard to giving of break in service and reengaging the
petitioner after the said period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rattan Lal's case (supra) observed as under:-
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008285-DB
CWP-32829-2018 (O&M) [3]
"In all these petitions the common question which arises for
decision is whether it is open to the State Government to appoint
teachers on an ad-hoc basis at the commencement of an
academic year and terminate their services before the
commencement of the next s = r vacation or earlier to appoint
them again on an ad-hoc basis at the commencement of next
academic year and to terminate their services before the
commencement of the succeeding summer vacation or earlier
and to continue to do so year after year. A substantial number of
such ad-hoc appointments are made in the existing vacancies
which have remained unfilled for three to four years. It is the
duty of the State Government to take steps to appoint teachers in
those vacancies in accordance with the rules as early as
possible. The State Government of Haryana has failed to
discharge that duty in these cases. It has been appointing
teachers for quite some time on an ad-hoc basis for short
periods as stated above without any justifiable reason. In some
cases the appointments are made for a period of six months only
and they are renewed after a break of a few days. The number of
teachers in the State of Haryana who are thus appointed on such
ad-hoc basis is very large indeed. If the teachers had been
appointed regularly they would have been entitled to the benefits
of summer vacation along with the salary and allowance
payable in respect of that period and to all other privileges such
as casual leave, medical leave, maternity leave etc. available to
all the Government servants. These benefits are denied to these
ad-hoc teachers unreasonably on account of this pernicious
system of appointment adopted by the State Government. These
ad-hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary
'hiring and firing' policy. These teachers who constitute the bulk
of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept these jobs
on an ad-hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The
government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a
sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008285-DB
CWP-32829-2018 (O&M) [4]
repercussions on the educational institutions and the children
studying there. The policy of 'ad-hocism' followed by the State
Government for a long period has led to the breach of Article 14
and Article 16 of the Constitution. Such a situation cannot be
permitted to last any longer. It is needless to say that the State
Government is expected to function as a model employer."
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, we hold that the
break of eight days in service was wholly uncalled for. More so, as we find
that the respondents were in need of contractual instructors, there was no
occasion to not allow them to continue till regularly selected candidates are
made available. We expect and hope that the respondent would conduct an
exercise for appointment of Instructors on regular basis and if they do so,
they will also allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process,
giving her requisite age relaxation as noticed in Rattan Lal's case (supra).
7. In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 30.05.2018,
passed by the CAT. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
8. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE
21.01.2025
rajesh
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No
4 of 4
