Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
C.S.I.R. & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. AJAY KUMAR JAIN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/03/2000
BENCH:
D.P.Wadhwa, Ruma Pal
JUDGMENT:
D.P. WADHWA, J.
The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated May
24, 1994 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Lucknow
Bench) (’CAT’ for short). The respondent, a Scientist, had
filed Original Application (OA No. 788 of 1993) seeking
various reliefs. His petition was allowed by the CAT giving
the following directions: -
"Accordingly, we hereby quash the Office Memorandum
dated 8.9.93 (Annexure 11 to the petition). As regards
Office Memorandum dated 5.6.92 we hold that the respondents
are not bound to accept the recommendations of the Selection
Committee as regards fixing the consolidated salary of the
petitioner as Rs.3400/- and we deem it just and proper to
direct and do hereby direct that the consolidated salary
payable to the petitioner shall be nothing less than
Rs.3737/- which the petitioner was getting as a Pool
Officer. The respondents are further directed to pay to the
petitioner accordingly the entire arrears of salary for the
period commencing from 1.8.91 till his re-engagement as
Fellow Scientist and to continue to pay the revised pay
scale as shown in the table of the scale issued by the CSIR
vide its Office Memorandum dated 3.8.92 (Annexure R-11 to
the rejoinder). The respondents are also directed to put
the petitioner on duty as scientist Fellow as if the
petitioner was not turned out on the basis of time limit and
to regularise the services of the petitioner taking into
account his full length of service rendered for CSIR as well
as for CDRI with continuity of service and the seniority."
There are three appellants. First appellant is the
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a
Society registered under the Societies Registration Act
controlled by the Central Government. Second appellant is
the Director of Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow
(CDRI), a body under the control of CSIR. Third appellant
is the Senior Controller of Administration in the CDRI. At
the outset it was pointed by Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned
Attorney General that in Sabhajit Tewary vs. Union of India
and others [(1975) 1 SCC 485] a Constitution Bench of this
Court held that CSIR is not an authority within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution. However, whether CSIR is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
authority or not is not relevant for the purpose of decision
of this appeal.
When the appellant sought leave to appeal to this
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution from the
judgment of the CAT this Court issued notice to the
respondent limiting the notice as under : -
"The only grievance made by learned counsel for the
petitioners is against the direction given by the Tribunal
to absorb and regularise the respondent even though his
appointment was merely as a Pool Officer, after expiry of
the period of tenure of three years from the date of his
appointment.
Issue notice returnable on 17.2.95 limited to this
question stating that the matter would be finally disposed
of at this stage.
Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, learned counsel, entered
appearance on behalf of the respondent. No further notice
is therefore necessary.
Meanwhile, the operation of the Tribunal’s order to
this extent alone shall remain stayed."
Subsequently, leave to appeal was, however, granted.
As to how OA came to be filed by the respondent
resulting in the impugned judgment by the CAT we may refer
to certain facts.
A Scientists’ Pool Scheme was formulated by the
Central Government by Resolution dated October 14, 1958. It
was stated that Government of India had under consideration
the question of establishing a Pool for temporary placement
of well qualified Indian scientists and technologists
returning from abroad until they are absorbed in suitable
posts on more or less permanent basis. The Scheme was
devised in consultation with CSIR. CSIR was authorised to
take all steps necessary for the implementation of the
Scheme. Some of the salient features of the Scheme are as
under: -
"1. A Pool shall be constituted in the manner
provided hereafter for a temporary placement of
well-qualified Indian scientists and technologists returning
from abroad until they are absorbed in suitable posts on a,
more or less, permanent basis. Persons with Indian
qualifications who have outstanding academic records may
also be considered for appointment but, as the Pool is
intended primarily for facilitating the utilisation of
Indian scientists and technologists abroad, the proportion
of persons with Indian qualifications who may be thus
appointed will not ordinarily exceed 25 per cent of the
total number of posts in the Pool.
Persons appointed to the Pool will be attached to a
Government department or a State Industrial enterprise,
national Laboratory, university or scientific institution,
or given some other work depending on the requirement and
their qualifications and experience. Officers of the pool
may also be seconded to a Government Department or other
organisations including industrial establishments in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
private sector. When a person is thus seconded to some
department or organisation for a period of a year or more,
the resultant vacancy in the Pool may be filled up if there
are qualified candidates in waiting.
2. Controlling Authority : ............
3. Emoluments of Pool Officers...........
4. Authorised strength The authorised strength of
the Pool at its initial constitution shall be 100. The
strength may be reviewed as often as is found necessary.
5. Recruitment Selections for the Pool will be made
in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. A
Special Recruitment Board will be set up consisting of......
6. ...................
7. Conditions of service The Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research will frame regulations for
regulating the conditions of service of Pool Officers.
Until such regulations are framed, Pool Officers will be
governed by the existing regulations which apply to
temporary Class I Officers of the Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research."
The respondent was given placement as Pool Officer and
was attached to the second respondent CDRI. His appointment
letter is dated May 25, 1988 and it reads as under: -
Sub.: Appointment as Pool Officer under the
Scientists Pool Scheme of the Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am happy to inform you that you have been selected
for appointment as Pool Officer under the Scientists Pool
Scheme of the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research on
the following terms and conditions.
1. You are offered a salary of Rs.2425/- per month
(Rupees Two thousand four hundred and twenty five only),
plus allowances as admissible to a temporary Class I Officer
of the CSIR for a period of two year(s) or till you obtain a
temporary or permanent employment in India, whichever is
earlier.
2. This offer is valid for three months only from the
date of this letter and will be treated as withdrawn if no
acceptance is received during this period. However, on
receipt of a formal acceptance of the offer from you it will
be kept open for one year.
3. Please intimate your acceptance and return all the
enclosed forms duly filled in to this office.
4. In case you accept the offer, you will be placed
in a Government/quasi Government organisation in India. As
far as possible, efforts will be made to match your
professional specialisation with the objectives and
activities of the organisation of your placement. You may
also contact such organisations to arrange your placement.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
5. In all matters of service you will be governed by
rules applicable to temporary Class I Officer of the Council
of Scientific and Industrial Research.
6. You will take oath of allegiance to the
constitution of India in the form enclosed (Annexure II).
7. During your stay in the Pool you will be under the
administrative control of the Head of the Organisation where
you are placed for routine administrative matters while for
all other matters (extension beyond the present term,
contingency grant, all leaves other than casual leave,
official tours etc.) you will be under the control of CSIR.
8. You will draw your salary as a Pool Officer from
the day you join your duty.
9. You are entitled to a contingent grant of
Rs.10,000/- per annum as per guidelines attached. You may
submit your request for the grant through the Head of the
Department of the organisation to which you are attached as
a Pool Officer.
10. Since the Scientists Pool provides temporary
employment support, you will be free to apply for any post
in India in order to secure a temporary or permanent
employment.
11. Your continuation in the Pool and extension
beyond the present term will depend upon your performance as
reflected through your work reports, sincere efforts made by
you to secure a regular employment and a satisfactory report
from the organisation of your placement. The prescribed
forms for this purpose will be supplied to you in due
course.
12. Since stay in the Pool is of a short duration,
Pool Officers are not allowed to pursue higher education
leading to a degree, diploma or a cert. The Pool Officers
are also not allowed to take up any private practice nor
they are entitled to any non-practising allowance in lieu
thereof.
13. Your research contribution in the form of
processes and patents acquired during your stay in the Pool
if property of the CSIR and you will not transfer any
knowledge or knowhow without prior permission of the CSIR.
14. You will be entitled to travelling allowance as
per the CSIR rules for journeys undertaking on official
duty. No allowance will be admissible for the journeys
undertaken to join the duty or on termination of your
appointment in the Pool.
15. Your appointment in the Pool can be terminated at
any time without assigning any reason whatsoever.
16. If you have secured a job and do not wish to join
the Pool now, please write to us about the organisation you
have joined."
It is not disputed that maximum period for which a
person could be appointed as Pool Officer is three years
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
which in the case of the respondent expired on July 31,
1991. At that time the respondent was being paid emoluments
of Rs.3,737/- per month.
CSIR had another scheme called "Scheme of quick
recruitment of Scientists (Fellows) for major projects" (for
short "Quick Hire Scheme"). Under this scheme the Director
constitutes a committee with himself as Chairman for
selection of scientists. This Quick Hire Scheme prescribes
different levels of emoluments depending upon the
qualifications etc. of the Scientist, who is to be
appointed. The appointment of such Fellows (Scientists) is
to be on contract for a period not exceeding three years,
which may be terminated by a notice of three months from
either side (or three months’ emoluments in lieu thereof).
The contract could not be extended beyond the maximum period
of three years.
After the expiry of the period of three years, the
respondent as Pool Officer was selected for appointment
under Quick Hire Scheme after a gap of few months.
Respondent had appeared before the Selection Committee under
the Quick Hire Scheme on March 11, 1992 and appointed as
Scientist Fellow of CDRI by appointment letter dated March
17, 1992. The Selection Committee considered the case of
the respondent for emoluments in the level/range of
Rs.3000-4000 and recommended his pay as Rs.3400/- per month.
On May 7, 1992 the respondent wrote to the Director, CDRI
seeking protection of his salary which earlier he was
getting as Pool Officer. We quote his letter: -
"Sir,
With due respect hereby, I would like to draw your
kind notice to the following points: -
- that earlier when I was working as Pool Officer my
total salary was Rs.3737/- p.m.
- that currently my salary has been fixed at Rs.3400/-
p.m. under the Quick Recruitment Scheme.
- that apparently there is big difference in my total
emoluments.
I shall be grateful, if you could kindly do the
needful to protract my salary status to encourage my
Scientific Zeal and enthusiasm.
With regards,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- (DR. AJAY K. JAIN) Scientist Fellow of DRI
Division of Toxicology"
Request of the respondent was not acceded to and he
was informed by Office Memorandum dated June 5, 1992 as
follows:
"No.5(136)/82-Estt.I(Vol.II) Dated 5.6.1992
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
With reference to his application dated 7th May, 1992
Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Scientist Fellow is informed that the
Selection Committee recommended his appointment as Scientist
Fellow on a consolidated salary of Rs.3400/- p.m. in the
range of Rs.3000-4000 under quick hire scheme.
Since the appointment has been made in accordance with
the recommendation of the Selection Committee it is
regretted that his request for fixing his emoluments at the
level of Rs.3737/- drawn by him as Pool Officer can not be
acceded to."
While respondent was appointed as Scientist Fellow of
CDRI under Quick Hire Scheme with effect from March 17, 1992
for one year at the first instance, on the expiry of period
of one year Director CDRI had approved the extension of his
contract for a further period of six months with effect from
March 17, 1993. Representation of the respondent for
extension of his tenure was rejected and the rejection was
communicated to him by Office Memorandum dated September 8,
1993 as under: -
"No.5(136)/82-Estt.I. Dated 08.09.1993
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
With reference to his application dated 12.08.1993 Dr.
A.K. Jain, Fellow of CDRI is informed that it is not
possible to extend the tenure beyond 16.09.1993."
The respondent approached the CAT challenging the
Office Memorandum dated September 8, 1993 and also rejection
of his request for being paid at the rate of Rs.3737/-, the
rate at which he was drawing as Pool Officer before his
appointment as Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire Scheme.
Respondent further prayed that he be reinstated with full
arrears of salary and other perquisites and consequential
benefits. Respondent also sought payment of his salary for
the period from August 1, 1991 when the appointment as Pool
Officer ceased and till his subsequent engagement as
Scientist Fellow on March 17, 1992. His OA was allowed by
the CAT with the directions aforesaid.
Before we consider the rival submissions we may note
the case of Pratibha Misra, which came to this Court on a
Special Leave Petition filed by the CSIR. Pratibha Misra
was also doing research work since her appointment as Junior
Research Fellow in 1981. Lastly, by order dated 11.6.1993
she was appointed as Senior Research Associate (Pool
Officer) under Scientists Pool Scheme on the basic pay of
Rs.2350/- per month plus allowances for a period of three
years with no further extension. As in the case of the
respondent before us the offer to Pratibha Misra indicated
that she would be free to apply for any post in India in
order to secure temporary or permanent employment. Pratibha
Misra represented to the Director of National Botanical
Research Institute, Lucknow (NBRI) for her appointment in
regular cadre of CSIR on the post of Scientist. She also
similarly addressed a letter to the Director General, CSIR
on the same subject. However, she was told by Office
Memorandum dated November 22, 1995 of the NBRI rejecting her
request for appointment in the regular cadre of CSIR on the
post of Scientist ’C’/’B’ not being covered by the extant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
rules. She was also advised by the said Office Memorandum
to apply against the post as and when advertised in
accordance with her area of research. Similarly, by letter
dated January 9, 1996 Pratibha Misra was also informed by
CSIR that the extant guidelines did not provide for
automatic absorption of Pool Officers in CSIR in regular
service. Pratibha Misra challenged both these
communications by filing OA before the CAT, Lucknow Bench.
CAT allowed her OA by issuing various directions as under:
-
"20. Considering therefore, the conspectus of the
case in the background of the foregoing discussions and also
keeping in view the principles of equity and justice while
we reject the reliefs prayed for by the applicant, we
simultaneously order as below:
(i) The applicant shall continue to be paid at the
existing rate until she is absorbed in one of the scientific
posts under the CSIR and her services may be utilised by the
respondents during this period in an appropriate manner.
(ii) The case of the applicant shall be considered for
appointment as Scientist in an existing or future vacancy,
if necessary by granting age relaxation, as per CSIR Service
Rules.
(iii) The respondents shall formulate a scheme for
absorption of scientific researchers at suitable levels in
respect of those who have put in long years of research
particularly those with 15 years or more.
Or in the alternative the respondents may suitably
amend CSIR Service Rules, 1994 so as to include a provision
for absorption of Scientific Researchers at suitable levels
in respect of those who have put in long years of research
work, particularly, 15 years or more. Modifications to be
made in the Service Rules may provide for grant of weightage
as may be considered appropriate to the period of research
work already put in, especially for purposes of relaxation
in age and qualifications. Provisions of weightage for
purposes of fixation of seniority and for grant of advance
increments could also be considered.
21. The above directions except those in Para 20(i)
which come into force immediately shall be complied with
within a period of six months from the date of communication
of these orders.
22. In case the applicant has already not been
absorbed as per directions contained in Para 20(ii) above,
her case shall be considered within 2 months of formulation
of the scheme or the amendment of the service rules as the
case may be, in pursuance of the observations in Para
20(iii) above."
Aggrieved CSIR and others came to this Court seeking
special leave to appeal. However, by order dated May 2,
1997 this Court refused to interfere with the following
observations: -
"We feel that having regard to the facts and
circumstances of this case, the direction of the Tribunal in
respect of the respondent Dr. Pratibha Misra, should not be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
disturbed. However, so far as the formulation of scheme is
concerned, we direct the petitioners to consider the
question of formulating a scheme for people who are working
on contract basis. The special leave petition is disposed
of."
We do not think that decision of the CAT in the case
of Pratibha Misra and dismissal of the special leave
petition by this Court would have any bearing on the issue
involved in the present appeal. This Court did not consider
the issues involved in the case of Pratibha Misra on merit
and proceeded to dispose of the special leave petition on
the facts and the circumstances of that case.
Thereafter in view of the directions of this Court a
scheme was propounded on July 3, 1998 effective from May 2,
1997 the date of dismissal of the special leave petition in
Pratibha Misra’s case by this Court. This scheme was
challenged in the CAT and also by filing a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court. The petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution was, however, allowed
to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the Scheme before
the CAT. It is contended by the appellants that purpose of
two schemes, i.e., Scientist Pool Scheme and Quick Hire
Scheme are altogether different. Under the Pool Scheme a
scientist is retained to check the brain-drain from India
and in the meanwhile to secure alternative job. The purpose
of Quick Hire Scheme though the result may be the same but
here it is to give quick appointment to a scientist on
contract basis which is not to exceed three years period.
Appellants, therefore, contended that since the purpose of
both the schemes is different, the respondent could not have
asked for emoluments in Quick Hire Scheme at the same rate
he was getting as Pool Officer. Technically that may be so
but when Quick Hire Scheme envisaged an emolument between
three to four thousand there does not appear to be any sound
reason for the Selection Committee to recommend pay of the
respondent at the rate of Rs.3,400/- and not at Rs.3,737/-.
Selection Committee must have been aware of the amount of
emoluments drawn by the respondent as Pool Officer. We are
left in dark as to what weighed with the Selection Committee
to recommend lower emoluments. It is the CSIR, the
appellant, under which both the schemes are being worked.
We can only say that the decision of the Selection Committee
is not informed with proper reason. CAT is, therefore,
right in directing that the respondent be paid @ Rs.3,737/-
per month while working as Scientist Fellow under the Quick
Hire Scheme. Appointment of the respondent as Scientist
Fellow under Quick Higher Scheme was for the period of one
year to be extended for a maximum period of three years.
After the expiry of one year of period, he was informed that
his contract could not be extended beyond a period of six
months effective from March 17, 1993. His services were
terminated after the expiry of this period. CAT has held
that the extension of the placement of respondent for six
months period was not in order as the letter of appointment
stated that the period was renewable on year to year basis
and further that the appointment of the respondent should
not have been made co-terminus with the project only. The
duration of tenure of Scientist Fellow is as under : "The
appointment of such Fellows will be on contract for a period
not exceeding three years and it may be terminated by a
notice of three months from either side (or three months’
emoluments in lieu thereof). The contract cannot be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
extended beyond the above maximum period."
We may also quote here paras 1 and 3 from the
appointment letter dated March 17, 1992 of the respondent :
"1. Your appointment will be on a contract for a
period of one year extendable on year to year basis for 3
years. Your services can, however, be terminated at any
time after a notice of 3 months’ from either side without
assigning any reason. 3. The position is contractual and
will not confer any right whatsoever for absorption in the
regular strength of the Institute."
It would, therefore, appear that though the maximum
period is three years, it could not be said that the
contract could not be terminated before the expiry of that
period. Rather the clause clearly provides that the
contract could be terminated by giving notice of three
months from either side. However, extension of contract for
a further period of six months does not mean that the
appellants have exercised their option to terminate the
contract by giving three months notice. Extension of
contract for six months cannot be equated with the notice of
termination of contract as provided in para 1 of the letter
of appointment. The question then arises if the contract
could be extended for six months period only when the Scheme
and the letter of appointment envisage extension of the
contract on year to year basis. Both the schemes serve twin
purposes. Highly qualified Indian scientists and
technologists returning from abroad get temporary placement
until they are absorbed in suitable post on more or less
permanent basis. Nation also gains from the experience and
knowledge of the scientists who have been working abroad.
It is with pride that these scientists return to their
motherland. They are to be shown due deference and
consideration. Conditions are to be created that they do
not again leave the country. The emoluments which are given
to these scientists cannot be treated as a mere dole. They
come back to the country of their origin with high hopes.
Disappointment should not await them in the long run. The
respondent was working as Post Doctoral Fellow in Japan
before he came to India to be placed as Pool Officer. After
the expiry of his tenure as Pool Officer, he was selected
and appointed as Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire
Scheme by duly constituted Selection Committee. He was
appointed for one year. His placement could be extended on
year to year basis for a maximum period of three years.
After the expiry of first one year period, he was given
extension of six months. His representation for further
extension was turned down. We do not know if his case of
extension was again placed before the Selection Committee
and what reasons, if any, prevailed upon the appellants to
extend the term of the respondent for six months only. In
the counter affidavit before the CAT or in the grounds of
appeal, appellants have not given any reasons for such an
extension of six months period only. This action of the
appellants on the face of it seems to be rather arbitrary
and it appears to us that in this respect they have meted
out shabby treatment to the respondent, a scientist. In the
circumstances, therefore, CAT is right in holding that the
respondent would have continued for a full term of three
years under the Quick Hire Scheme. But then the CAT has
gone a step further and has directed the appellants to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
regularise the services of the respondent which does not
appear to be correct. No doubt, Scientists Pool Scheme and
Quick Hire Scheme provided a sort of cushion to the
scientists returning from abroad and under the circumstances
period of their engagement under either of the schemes has
to be for a limited period. For regular appointment or
absorption in CSIR or any of its bodies the scientists have
to be governed by the relevant service rules as applicable.
Employment under the Quick Hire Scheme was on contract
basis. The respondent was not governed by CSIR Service
Rules, 1994 for recruitment of Scientific, Technical and
Support Staff as he would not be appointed under those
Rules. An appointment under the Quick Hire Scheme cannot be
equated with regular appointment as per the relevant
recruitment rules of CSIR against a sanctioned post. To be
eligible for regularisation, the respondent had to come
within the relevant rules. It is difficult to appreciate
the directions issued by the CAT in the circumstances of the
case. A Pool Officer or a Scientist Fellow under the Quick
Hire Scheme cannot continue to hold on to the job till
superannuation. The respondent has referred to certain
instances where scientists were appointed on permanent
contractual post by CSIR without following the selection
procedure. If something wrong has been done in violation of
the rules, we cannot use that as an example to perpetuate an
illegality. In any case those cases are not before us and
it is difficult for us to comment if there was violation of
any rules regarding those scientists. Respondent, however,
cannot take advantage of an illegality, if there is any.
Appointment as Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire Scheme
cannot be understood to mean regular appointment under the
relevant recruitment rules applicable to CSIR or to bodies
under its control. The term ’appointment’ has been only
loosely used. It is mere placement as Scientist Fellow and
not appointment in the sense in which this term is used in
service law. As noted above, a scheme has been framed for
absorption in the Pool effective from May 2, 1997. If the
respondent case is covered by that scheme, he will certainly
be entitled to be considered thereunder. We may refer to a
decision of this Court which was rendered in somewhat
similar circumstances. In Director, Institute of Management
Development, U.P, vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava [JT 1992 (4)
SC 489 = (1992) 4 SCC 33] the respondent was first appointed
as Research Executive on a consolidated fixed compensation
of Rs.1,250/- per month on contract basis for a period three
months. It would specifically stated in the order that the
appointment was purely on ad hoc basis. Appointment of the
respondent continued on various posts like Training
Executive or Executive on different emoluments but always on
ad hoc basis. Before the expiry of the last period for
which the appointment was made the respondent filed writ
petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking regular or
permanent appointment. She succeeded. High Court directed
that she may be taken back on duty on the post hitherto held
by her and that her services be regularised within a period
of three months. On appeal filed in this Court, both the
parties referred to relevant rules governing service
conditions of the employees of the appellant in support of
their respective contentions. Appellant referred to the
office letter dated January 9, 1990 by which the respondent
was appointed which stated that "with effect from the date
of joining Smt. Pushpa Rani Srivastava is appointed on a
consolidated fixed pay of Rs.2400/- per month on contract
basis for a period of six months in the Institute. The
appointment of Smt. Srivasvata is purely on ad hoc basis
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
and is terminable without any notice. " On that basis it
was submitted that Pushpa Rani was appointed on contractual
basis on a consolidated pay and duration of appointment was
six months. The appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and
was terminable without any notice. After examining the
various contentions this Court held that the directions
given by the High Court were not valid. It said that the
appointment was purely ad hoc and on contractual basis for a
limited period. Therefore, on the expiry of the period of
six months the right to remain in the post comes to an end.
Thus viewed, which this Court said was the only view,
judgment of the High Court was set aside. The Assistant
Director of the CDIR and Scientist-In-Charge appreciated the
work of the respondent and recommended for the
regularisation of his services and these recommendations did
merit consideration. The respondent, it appears, after the
expiry of his fixed period continued to work as Pool Officer
under the Assistant Director CDRI in the hope of getting
extension till he was selected Scientist Fellow under the
Quick Hire Scheme without there being any order in his
favour respecting that period. He could not, therefore, be
awarded any emoluments for that period for which he
continued to work as Pool Officer without there being any
order in his favour. Yet the CAT awarded him emoluments for
that period which appear to be rather irregular. We,
however, notice that the leave was granted only to consider
if the CAT could give directions to absorb and regularise
the respondent when his appointment was merely as Pool
Officer or Scientist Fellow. We shall not, therefore,
disturb the order of the CAT that the respondent to be paid
emoluments for the period from July 31, 1991 to March 17,
1992 @ Rs.3,737/- per month. We, therefore, set aside the
impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal
(Lucknow Bench) whereby it directed the appellants to put
the respondent on duty as Scientist Fellow as if he was not
turned out on the basis of time limit and to regularise his
services taking into account his full length of service
rendered for CSIR as well as CDRI with continuity of service
and the seniority. The impugned judgment is, however,
upheld to the extent that the respondent would be entitled
to emoluments @ Rs.3,737/- per month as Scientist Fellow
under the Quick Hire Scheme from March 17, 1992 for a period
of three years and further the respondent will also be
entitled to emoluments at this rate for the period from July
31, 1991 to March 16, 1992. Since there was no stay of this
Court regarding payment of these amounts to the respondent,
he shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the
delayed payments. Appellants shall be entitled to deduct
the amount already paid to the respondent. The arrears
shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today.
The appeal is partly allowed. There shall, however, be no
order as to costs.