Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 12 CAT CK 0729

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs Union Of India & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi · Decided on 29 December 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pradeep Kumar, Member (A) · R. N. Singh, Member (J)
CASE NUMBER
O.A. No.2205/2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 264 words

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A):-

The applicant herein was engaged on a contractual assignment with Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (for short, CDAC) on 23.08.2010 as ERP Analyst (II). He joined his duties on 01.10.2010. Depending upon the workload in CDAC, such contractual assignments have been extended from time to time.

The applicant’s current contractual engagement was coming to a close on 31.12.2020. However, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted across the bar that in keeping with the need of work, the contractual engagement of the applicant has since been extended up to 30.06.2021.

The applicant also sought his regularisation as he has already done work for about 10 years and reliance was placed on Rule 4.10 of Recruitment Rules of CDAC and Bye Law No. 18.1.5.1 and also 18.1.8.

2.

Matter has been heard. It is noted that the CDAC has since formulated a Scheme for regularisation for which 3 groups have been formed i.e. (i) the employees who joined on or before 31.12.1998; (ii) the employees who joined between 01.01.1999 and 01.10.2006 and (iii) those who joined after 01.10.2006. It is seen from the OA file that action for regularisation has been taken for first two groups. The applicant falls in the third group.

3.

After arguing the matter for sometime the learned counsel for the applicant sought permission of the Court to withdraw the OA with further liberty to file a better OA, if so advised and if need arises for the same. Pending MAs also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.