ups_00918 — An official, who has completed 24 years of service, though appointed on ad hoc basis subject to the period of probation, cannot be terminated citing Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Rules), 1965 and it isviolative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. - Directed to give one time relaxation confirming the services of the Applicant following the spirit of Uma Devi's case

UPS

An official, who has completed 24 years of service, though appointed on ad hoc basis subject to the period of probation, cannot be terminated citing Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Rules), 1965 and it isviolative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. - Directed to give one time relaxation confirming the services of the Applicant following the spirit of Uma Devi's case — The context provided pertains to a court case where an employee, Smt. Mainak Pasawala, contests her termination despite completing 24 years of service on an ad hoc basis. Thechunk highlights that alt... — Facts:The post of one Stenographer in PIB, Ahmedabad had remained vacant due to retirement of earlier incumbent. One Shri Sunilkumar Menon, who was recommended for appointment by Staff Selection Commission (SSC) as a Stenographer Junior in PIB, Ahmedabad refused to join with PIB, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, PIB Ahmedabad sought NOC from the SCC for recruitment of Stenographer (Junior) as they were facing hardship due to non-availability of Stenographer (Junior) from SSC. In order to fill the vacancy on ad hoc basis, PIB Ahmedabad had sought names from the Employment Exchange, Ahmedabad for Stenographer Junior against the vacant post. In response to the above request, Employment Exchange recommended the names of 12 persons. The Applicant, who had registered her name in the local Employment Exchange at Ahmedabad for the cadre of Stenographer on 13-8-1996 was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The selection committee which was duly constituted including three senior officers from the department, recommended the name of the Applicant along with three candidates in its meeting held on 7-2-1997. Subsequently, another panel was constituted which recommended only the name of the Applicant who had appeared in the test / interview on 13-1-1998. Thereafter, Applicant was issued a letter of Appointment, dated 20-2-1998 by the PIB, Western Region, Mumbai offering to the Applicant the temporary post of Stenographer (Junior) in PIB, Ahmedabad in the V CPC pay scale of &#X20B9; 4,000-100-6,000. Some time later, a Telex message was received in the PIB stating that the service of Applicant who was working as Stenographer Junior on ad hoc basis was terminated with effect from 10-11-1998. However, after sometime, the Applicant was reappointed on 16-11-1998 at PIB, Ahmedabad. However, the competent authority issued a formal letter of appointment on 21-4-1999 appointing her as a temporary Stenographer (Junior) in PIB, Ahmedabad with effect from 10-5-1999 on probation for a period of two years which may be extended / reduced depending on the performance, at the sole discretion of the Appointing Authority. Although two years' probation period was over in the year 2001, the Applicant did not receive any communication regarding her extension of the probation period in spite of the fact that her name was recommended by the controlling authority. Further, the Applicant was given additional duty of Personal Assistant to DDG, PIB, Ahmedabad in addition to her normal duties as a Stenographer (Junior). With effect from 1-1-2006, the scale of pay of the Applicant was revised as &#X20B9; 5,200 - 20,200 (PB-1) with GP of &#X20B9; 2,400. In the year 2014, the Respondent authority issued a common seniority list for the cadre of Stenographer, Gr.III wherein the name of the Applicant was duly incorporated. Subsequently, on 20-1-2017, the Applicant was served with notice by the Office of PIB, Western Region, Mumbai under Rule 5(I) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965 informing that her service as a Stenographer (Junior) PIB has been terminated with effect from the date of expiry for a period of one month from the date of the notice i.e. 18-1-2017. Aggrieved by the sudden termination by the impugned Order, dated 18-1-2017, the Applicant filed the present OA. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Respondent authority had not issued any order whatsoever for termination of the Applicant's probation at any point of time and therefore it cannot be claimed that the Applicant is still on probation. Moreover, the then Dy. Director, Ahmedabad had issued Order, dated 2-11-2006 to her requiring her to perform the duties of Personal Assistant also and till date it has not been cancelled. The Applicant further contended that as per the special condition stipulated in the appointment order of the Applicant, her 2 - year probation commenced in the month of February, 1999 and it is to be deemed to have been over in February, 2001. Further, the name of the Applicant has also been included in the seniority list for the cadre of Stenographer, Grade-III serving in various ROs/BOs of PIB. Moreover, the Applicant had never received any warning letter whatsoever with regard to her performance, conduct, etc. The Applicant states that she had to face a hostile situation created by one Deputy Director who joined PIB, Ahmedabad on 15-5-2015 and therefore she had to bring it to the notice of higher authorities and that the sudden termination under Temporary Service Rules is attributable to the said incident which stood resolved at a later stage due to the intervention of higher authorities. The Respondents contended that the last regular vacancy of Stenographer, Grade-III remained vacant due to the fact that the person who was recommended as a Stenographer III applied through SSC did not opt to join in the department. Therefore, the Applicant was appointed absolutely on ad hoc basis through employment exchange channel which however was not a regular channel for appointment. Moreover, the Applicant was never confirmed as a regular employee in PIB, Ahmedabad. The Applicant, being a temporary employee, was given notice for termination under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Rules), 1965. The Counsel for the Respondents therefore contended that the procedure adopted for termination of service as laid down in the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was legally valid and the OA deserves to be dismissed.

UPS

An official, who has completed 24 years of service, though appointed on ad hoc basis subject to the period of probation, cannot be terminated citing Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Rules), 1965 and it isviolative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. - Directed to give one time relaxation confirming the services of the Applicant following the spirit of Uma Devi's case — The context provided pertains to a court case where an employee, Smt. Mainak Pasawala, contests her termination despite completing 24 years of service on an ad hoc basis. Thechunk highlights that alt... — Facts:The post of one Stenographer in PIB, Ahmedabad had remained vacant due to retirement of earlier incumbent. One Shri Sunilkumar Menon, who was recommended for appointment by Staff Selection Commission (SSC) as a Stenographer Junior in PIB, Ahmedabad refused to join with PIB, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, PIB Ahmedabad sought NOC from the SCC for recruitment of Stenographer (Junior) as they were facing hardship due to non-availability of Stenographer (Junior) from SSC. In order to fill the vacancy on ad hoc basis, PIB Ahmedabad had sought names from the Employment Exchange, Ahmedabad for Stenographer Junior against the vacant post. In response to the above request, Employment Exchange recommended the names of 12 persons. The Applicant, who had registered her name in the local Employment Exchange at Ahmedabad for the cadre of Stenographer on 13-8-1996 was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The selection committee which was duly constituted including three senior officers from the department, recommended the name of the Applicant along with three candidates in its meeting held on 7-2-1997. Subsequently, another panel was constituted which recommended only the name of the Applicant who had appeared in the test / interview on 13-1-1998. Thereafter, Applicant was issued a letter of Appointment, dated 20-2-1998 by the PIB, Western Region, Mumbai offering to the Applicant the temporary post of Stenographer (Junior) in PIB, Ahmedabad in the V CPC pay scale of &#X20B9; 4,000-100-6,000. Some time later, a Telex message was received in the PIB stating that the service of Applicant who was working as Stenographer Junior on ad hoc basis was terminated with effect from 10-11-1998. However, after sometime, the Applicant was reappointed on 16-11-1998 at PIB, Ahmedabad. However, the competent authority issued a formal letter of appointment on 21-4-1999 appointing her as a temporary Stenographer (Junior) in PIB, Ahmedabad with effect from 10-5-1999 on probation for a period of two years which may be extended / reduced depending on the performance, at the sole discretion of the Appointing Authority. Although two years' probation period was over in the year 2001, the Applicant did not receive any communication regarding her extension of the probation period in spite of the fact that her name was recommended by the controlling authority. Further, the Applicant was given additional duty of Personal Assistant to DDG, PIB, Ahmedabad in addition to her normal duties as a Stenographer (Junior). With effect from 1-1-2006, the scale of pay of the Applicant was revised as &#X20B9; 5,200 - 20,200 (PB-1) with GP of &#X20B9; 2,400. In the year 2014, the Respondent authority issued a common seniority list for the cadre of Stenographer, Gr.III wherein the name of the Applicant was duly incorporated. Subsequently, on 20-1-2017, the Applicant was served with notice by the Office of PIB, Western Region, Mumbai under Rule 5(I) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965 informing that her service as a Stenographer (Junior) PIB has been terminated with effect from the date of expiry for a period of one month from the date of the notice i.e. 18-1-2017. Aggrieved by the sudden termination by the impugned Order, dated 18-1-2017, the Applicant filed the present OA. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Respondent authority had not issued any order whatsoever for termination of the Applicant's probation at any point of time and therefore it cannot be claimed that the Applicant is still on probation. Moreover, the then Dy. Director, Ahmedabad had issued Order, dated 2-11-2006 to her requiring her to perform the duties of Personal Assistant also and till date it has not been cancelled. The Applicant further contended that as per the special condition stipulated in the appointment order of the Applicant, her 2 - year probation commenced in the month of February, 1999 and it is to be deemed to have been over in February, 2001. Further, the name of the Applicant has also been included in the seniority list for the cadre of Stenographer, Grade-III serving in various ROs/BOs of PIB. Moreover, the Applicant had never received any warning letter whatsoever with regard to her performance, conduct, etc. The Applicant states that she had to face a hostile situation created by one Deputy Director who joined PIB, Ahmedabad on 15-5-2015 and therefore she had to bring it to the notice of higher authorities and that the sudden termination under Temporary Service Rules is attributable to the said incident which stood resolved at a later stage due to the intervention of higher authorities. The Respondents contended that the last regular vacancy of Stenographer, Grade-III remained vacant due to the fact that the person who was recommended as a Stenographer III applied through SSC did not opt to join in the department. Therefore, the Applicant was appointed absolutely on ad hoc basis through employment exchange channel which however was not a regular channel for appointment. Moreover, the Applicant was never confirmed as a regular employee in PIB, Ahmedabad. The Applicant, being a temporary employee, was given notice for termination under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Rules), 1965. The Counsel for the Respondents therefore contended that the procedure adopted for termination of service as laid down in the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was legally valid and the OA deserves to be dismissed.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text