Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 845 (RAJ)

University of Rajasthan v. Gopal Sharan Gupta

2009-03-24

ASHOK PARIHAR, G.S.SARRAF

body2009
Judgment Hon'ble PARIHAR, J.—The respondent, concerned employee was initially appointed as a Research Assistant on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1991 vide order dated 16.1.1991 in the Center for Rajasthan Studies under University of Rajasthan. Subsequently, a regular advertisement was also issued for appointment for the post of Research Assistant in the Study Center on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 17.2.1991 the concerned employee was given appointment on the post of Research Assistant vide order dated 26.4.1991. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.04.1991 is reproduced as under:- "With reference to your letter No. 772 dated 2.4.91, on the above subject, I am directed to convey the approval of the Vice Chancellor for the appointment of Shri Gopal Saran Gupta as Research Asstt. @ Rs. 1200/- p.m. (fixed) on the following terms and conditions: - (i) If the services of the incumbent are continued beyond 240 days. You are required to comply with the conditions of Section 25 F regarding giving proper notice before retrenchment of the services under Law. (ii) This appointment will not involve any financial liability to the University either to absorb the incumbent or to continue him in any other capacity after the duration of the project. The expenditure on the above will be met out of center project provision of Rs. 55,000/-." 2. Since there was no fixed tenure of appointment in the above order dated 26.04.1991 nor there was any mention of a particular scheme sponsored by the Central Government, the concerned employee was continued on the post. Apart from giving the certificate for appreciation by the Director of Center, the concerned employee was also granted house rent allowance w.e.f. 1st April, 1994 to 31st March, 1995 at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month as per the University Rules vide order dated 12-01-1995. 3. As has come on record, the concerned employee, while working on the post of Research Assistant on adhoc basis in the Center for Rajasthan Studies, was to draw the fixed salary of Rs. 2500/- per month without any allowance w.e.f. 1st April, 1995 to 31st March, 1996 vide order dated 21st July, 1995. 3. As has come on record, the concerned employee, while working on the post of Research Assistant on adhoc basis in the Center for Rajasthan Studies, was to draw the fixed salary of Rs. 2500/- per month without any allowance w.e.f. 1st April, 1995 to 31st March, 1996 vide order dated 21st July, 1995. It was only vide order dated 2nd April, 1996 an order was issued granting extension for one year to the concerned employee as Research Assistant w.e.f. 01st April, 1996 to 31st March, 1997 on a fixed salary of Rs. 2500/- per month. Having discontinued from service after 31/03/1997 a writ petition was filed by the concerned employee before this Court challenging the termination. While allowing the writ petition vide order dated 12/05/2000, the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 02nd April, 1996 whereby the services of the concerned employee were terminated after 31st March, 1997. The present appellants were directed to continue the concerned employee on the post of Research Assistant with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 01st April, 1997. The arrears were also to be paid accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the concerned employee was appointed on the post of Research Assistant in the Center for Rajasthan Studies, Jaipur under the particular project sponsored and funded by the Central Government and in view of the order dated 02/04/1996 since the extension was for a fixed tenure, the compliance of Section 25-F was not required to be made as observed by the learned Single Judge. 5. As has already been referred above, there is nothing on record to show that the concerned employee was appointed as Research Assistant for a particular project and the same been completed, services of the concerned employee were no more required. Even in reply, no particulars whatsoever have been given in regard to any such project for which appointment was given. That apart, even in the initial letter of appointment there was a clear stipulation of complying with the provisions of Section 25-F in case the services are continued beyond 240 days. There is no order of extension for a particular period after the initial appointment till the last order dated 02/04/1996. That apart, even in the initial letter of appointment there was a clear stipulation of complying with the provisions of Section 25-F in case the services are continued beyond 240 days. There is no order of extension for a particular period after the initial appointment till the last order dated 02/04/1996. There was also no explanation on behalf of the present appellants as to under what circumstances no further extension could be given to the concerned employee after 31st March, 1997, when admittedly, the Center for Research Studies in the appellant University still exists and work of Research Assistant is also continuing. 6. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, we are also of the opinion that since the concerned employee continued for more than 6 years without any break, the compliance of Section 25-F was required to be made as stipulated in the initial letter of appointment. The last extension order on the face of it appears to be a camouflage to avoid liabilities under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The termination was made on 01st April, 1997. More than a decade has lapsed. Admittedly, the concerned employee has also been employed, may be on temporary basis, during the intervening period. Thus, it will not be justified to allow him full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, moreso, on the principles of no work no pay. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the impugned order dated 12/05/2000 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the respondent, concerned employee shall be entitled for reinstatement on the post of Research Assistant on the same terms and conditions he was employed at the time of his termination. However, in case the salary of the Research Assistant in the Center for Rajasthan Studies has been increased on consolidated basis or otherwise during the intervening period, the concerned employee shall be entitled for the same salary of Research Assistant as exists on the date of reinstatement. Though the concerned employee shall not be entitled for any back wages, however, for other purposes, so far as regularization or otherwise for which the concerned employee would have entitled, the intervening period will be counted for the same. The appellants are directed to reinstate the respondent-concerned employee and pass necessary orders within 30 days from today. There will be no order as to costs.