An undisputed appointment warrants an ex post facto appointment letter despite missing departmental records.

The applicant was selected on a contractual basis as a Lecturer following an interview on 10 August 2010 pursuant to an advertisement dated 27 July 2010.

She continued to work, received salary and increments, and was granted annual vacations and maternity leave, but no formal appointment letter was available in her personal file.

The respondents acknowledged that her joining report dated 11 August 2010 was on record and that she had been treated as “court protected” since April 2011.

She sought an appointment letter and the benefit of the Tribunal’s decision in Vandana Jain and others v. UOI and others, OA No. 33/CH/2011, decided 31 March 2011.

The OA was disposed of after hearing both parties.

Whether the applicant, whose selection and continued service were undisputed but whose appointment letter was missing from the records, was entitled to a formal appointment letter.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the protection granted in Vandana Jain and others v. UOI and others.

The order cites no statute or specific legal test governing appointment letters. It relies on the undisputed fact of the applicant’s selection and continuous service, together with the joining report available in the service records, as the basis for directing issuance of an appointment letter.

It also extends to the applicant, as a contractual employee, the protection granted in Vandana Jain and others v. UOI and others, OA No. 33/CH/2011, on the same terms.

The Tribunal found no dispute that the applicant had been selected and had continuously worked in the post since 2010, receiving salary and other benefits.

Although the respondents could not locate an appointment letter, the applicant’s joining report was available in the service records.

In those circumstances, the Tribunal considered issuance of an appointment letter necessary to meet the ends of justice and directed that it be issued retrospectively.

It further applied the protection in Vandana Jain to the applicant on the same terms.

It held that the protection granted in Vandana Jain would apply to her on the same terms as a contractual employee.

The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs.