Shakuntala vs Chief Administrative Officer

Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

MA No. 1286/2019 filed by the applicant's counsel has been taken on record and the same is allowed.

The applicant was appointed as Daily Wager Ward Aya - IV on compassionate ground on 11.11.1991 in the L.R.S. Institute of Tuberculosis of Respiratory Diseases. She was given compassionate appointment in place of her husband. The applicant continued to work with the respondents and was granted temporary status w.e.f. 27. 06.2000. As submitted in the OA, the applicant has been making representation for her regularisation to the respondents. The respondents have rejected her claim for regularisation vide their letter dated 11.05.2015 on the ground that the applicant is only Class - IV passed and the educational qualification cannot be relaxed. It is stated in the OA that in March, 2016 the respondents arbitrarily and illegally also terminated the services of the applicant without assigning any reason. The applicant sent a legal notice to the respondents dated 26.04.2016 requesting them to reinstate the applicant in the service as a regular employee on the same post and also pay the difference of amount of salary to the applicant. The legal notice served by the applicant on the respondents dated 26. 04.2016 (Annexure -A-1) primarily seeks her reinstatement into service as she has been arbitrarily and illegally terminated in March, 2016 without assigning any reason and also for regularisation of her services.

However, no impugned order of termination of her services has been annexed or subsequently mentioned either in the OA or in the legal notice.

The respondents vide their counter affidavit opposed the OA and stated that the submissions of the applicant in the OA are false as the applicant, who is seeking reinstatement of her services was never terminated or removed from service by the respondents. It is a matter of record that the applicant has continued to work with the respondents in the same office and is drawing regular salary. The salary slips and the attendance sheets annexed with the counter affidavit show that the applicant has been continuously working. It is also stated that she was given temporary status vide office order dated 27.06.2000 and has been granted salary at par with other Group 'D' staff. However, in view of her educational qualification, which is only Class-IV, she cannot be regularised on the post of MTS which requires Class - X as educational qualification. Copy of the school leaving certificate submitted by the respondents clearly indicates that the applicant with date of birth 13.03.1961 studied up to Class - IV and left the school while in Class - V. This certificate is dated 30.11.1991.

In the rejoinder, the applicant has vehemently denied the submissions made by the respondents in their counter reply. The Tribunal vide its order dated 14. 12.2018 in this OA had directed the counsels to submit certain documents supporting their claims. The applicant has submitted the required documents which have been placed on record including a certificate issued by the school where the applicant studying up to Class - VIII. The learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the points made in the OA in their rejoinder stating that the applicant should be reinstated and regularised. The respondents argued that the OA is based on false claim and factually incorrect information and therefore be dismissed with cost on the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (S.L.P. (C) No. 25682 of 2008) decided on 28.07.2009, Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the respondents have also relied upon the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Anr. Vs. A. Singamuthu (2017) 4 SCC 113 and Balbir Singh Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) 2013 SCC online Del 3852.

Heard Mr. Prabhu Dayal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shashwat Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, perused the records and relied upon judgments.

The applicant was appointed as Daily wager Ward Aya- IV on 11.11.1991 on compassionate grounds with the respondents, in place of her husband. The applicant was subsequently granted temporary status vide order dated 27.06.2000 (Annexure- A-2) clearly indicating her entitlements and service conditions. The applicant has continued to work with the respondents and has submitted in her OA that in March, 2016, the respondents arbitrarily and illegally terminated the services of the applicant without assigning any reason. Her claim that her services have been terminated has not been supported by any impugned order. This has also been stated in the legal notice served by the applicant counsel on the respondents dated 26.04.2016. Here also no impugned order of termination of service has been mentioned or annexed. Vide this OA the applicant has sought reinstatement into service, regularisation of her services and payment of dues of amount of salary being paid to similarly placed staff. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is confirmed that the applicant has given false information that her services had been terminated. It is stated that she continues to work with the respondents and is regularly being paid the salary. In support of the argument, the respondents have annexed along with their counter reply copies of attendance sheets and the pay slips clearly indicating that the applicant services have not been terminated and she continues to work with the respondents. It is thus established that false statement has been made and based on this factually incorrect information the applicant is seeking relief from this Tribunal. As far as other reliefs are concerned, she is being paid salary in the PB Rs. 5200-20200/- which is at par with other Group 'D' employees.

It is also a fact that her services have been not been regularised as she does not possess the required educational qualification. As per the Learned counsel for the applicant and documents submitted by him the applicant has passed Class -VIII and was studying in Class -IX. Here also, there are two documents, one that has been submitted during the course of the arguments by the counsel for the respondents, which is a school leaving certificate of the applicant mentioning that applicant left the school while she was in Class -V. In this School leaving certificate her date of birth has been mentioned as 13.03.1961. The school leaving certificate submitted by the applicant, which is on record shows that she passed Class-VIII. Interestingly, in this certifacte her date of birth is mentioned as 01.08.1974. This creates serious doubts about the age of the applicant. The OA has been filed by the applicant indicating that she is 55 years of age while she filed the OA on 07.09.2016. If she is 55 years of age while filing the OA in 2016 her date of birth should be somewhere in 1961 as has been indicated in the school leaving certificate submitted by learned counsel for the respondents. However, the certificate submitted by the applicant which is on record indicates her date of birth as 01.08.1973, which is obviously incorrect.

This is, therefore a case of misrepresentation of facts as the applicant in the OA and also in the legal notice submitted that her services have been terminated in March, 2016 by the applicant and that she should be reinstated. This has not been supported by any order passed by the respondents in this regard. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have categorically annexed pay slips from April, 2014 to March, 2017 along with attendance sheet indicating that she continues to be in the service of the respondents. It is also evident that there is no clarity regarding her qualification. There are two certificates indicating not only the different educational qualification but also a serious difference in the dates of birth. This is a serious matter which should be looked into by the respondents. The records indicate that she was granted temporary status and has not been regularised in view of her educational qualification as mentioned in both certificates, one that indicates educational qualification up to Class - IV and the second that indicates educational qualification up to Class- VIII.

It is thus evident that the Tribunal has been mislead by the factually incorrect information provided by the applicant regarding her status in service with the respondents. The certificate submitted by the applicant too is doubtful as it indicates her date of birth being 1. 08.1974 whereas when the OA was filed in 2016, it was indicated by the applicant that her age is 55 years. There is obviously a serious discrepancy here.

In view of above mentioned, I am of the view that the respondents should further verify the authencity of the school leaving certificate mentioning date of birth submitted by the applicant and take appropriate action as deem fit. I am also inclined to impose cost on the applicant for misrepresentation of the information and facts, however, in view of her compassionate appointment and being a Group - 'D' employee no cost is being imposed. The OA is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.