Asha Sharma vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors.

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):

The applicant has preferred instant OA seeking quashment of the relieving order dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure A-1), received by the applicant on 29.02.2020, whereby the applicant has been relieved from duties w.e.f. 31.12.2019 due to retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. The applicant has also prayed for quashment of the order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure A-2), whereby the claim of the applicant for allowing her to continue in service on a contractual basis beyond the age of superannuation upto the age of 65 years, has been rejected for want of policy instructions regarding extension of service to persons engaged on a contractual basis. She has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow her to continue on a contractual basis up to the age of 65 years or till the post is filled on a regular basis, whichever is earlier, in terms of the policy decision dated 09.10.2018.

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as TGT (Social Studies), Mistress, on 26.11.2002, against a sanctioned post through open selection and joined the said post. Though the initial engagement of the applicant was for the academic session 2002-2003 but, the same was continued without any fresh selection till the age of her superannuation. She claimed that her work and conduct were quite satisfactory. It has been pleaded that there was no maximum age prescribed for contractual teachers as she was due to attain the age of 58 years on 31.12.2019, therefore, she submitted a representation dated 09.12.2019 for allowing her to continue as TGT (Social Studies), as was being allowed to retirees/pensioners which was favorably recommended by the Incharge Government Middle School to respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 10.01.2020 whereupon, respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 16.01.2020 sent the case to respondent no. 3 with a request for her continuation till the regular incumbent join.

Thereafter, respondent No. 3, vide the impugned order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure A-2), rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that there were no policy instructions providing for extension of service to persons engaged on contractual basis.

The applicant has placed reliance upon the policy decision dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure A-9), pertaining to the engagement of retirees/pensioners on contractual basis in various departments of the Chandigarh Administration. The said policy is stated to be applicable to contractual appointees as well in terms of Clause 12 of the Terms of the appointment letter which makes the other conditions, policy relevant rules applicable, to the contractual appointees. The applicant contended that all contractual appointees would fall within the same category and that there cannot be any discrimination amongst contractual appointees on the basis of appointment.

It has been asserted that despite the aforesaid policy instructions, the applicant was relieved from service on 29.02.2020, and she was also not paid salary for a period of two months and said action on the part of the respondents in not permitting the applicant to continue in service on contractual basis till the age of 65 years, in terms of the policy dated 09.10.2018, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds the applicant has filed this OA challenging the inaction of respondents.

The respondents have filed written statement contending that the claim of the applicant on the ground that her appointment was purely contractual and only up to 31.03.2003 or till the post was filled on a regular basis. The matter of re-engagement of a government employee after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation is governed under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Chapter VII. As per Rules 7.17 and 7.18 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, retirees are entitled to apply for contractual appointment, if any such requirement is advertised by the Government for some purpose. It is further submitted that the retiree cannot claim to continue in the same service on the ground of the policy guidelines dated 09.10.2018 as a matter of right. The applicant, being a contractual employee, is governed by the terms and conditions of the appointment order. Therefore, on attaining the age of superannuation, the government employee is not entitled to get the benefit of the guidelines dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure A-9). The respondents have justified their action stating it in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and sought dismissal of the OA. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in OA.

We have heard learned Sr. counsel for the applicant and respondents and perused the material available on record.

The principal objection of the respondents, is with regard to the non-applicability of the policy instructions dated 09.10.2018 qua the claim of the applicant. We have gone through the policy instructions dated 09.10.2018. From the perusal whereof, we find that, acting on the various references received from the Departments of Chandigarh Administration, the Department of Personnel decided that retirees/pensioners should be engaged on certain terms and conditions. There is no stipulation that a person retired from a post, who was appointed on a contractual basis, is debarred to claim the benefit of policy regarding engagement of retirees/pensioners. The said policy nowhere makes any distinction among the regular retiree/ pensioners and contractual retirees.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not claiming continuation on the post as a matter of right. However, the claim may be reconsidered by the respondents in terms of the policy dated 09.10.2018, since the respondents have simply rejected the claim of the applicant on the basis of want of any policy instructions, which is incorrect.

We have given our thoughtful consideration. We find force in the arguments of learned Sr. counsel for the applicant. The policy does not make any difference between the retirees on the basis of mode of selection. We find that justice would be met if the respondents are directed to consider the claim of applicant in terms of the policy decision dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure A-9). Accordingly, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to consider the claim of the applicant seeking extension in service in terms of the policy decision dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure A-9) within a period of four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents shall also consider the claim of the applicant for release of salary for two months, if the applicant had worked during the said period.

With these observations, the OA is disposed of. No costs.