Abandonment Of Scheme Under Which Employees Were Appointed Can Be Sole Reason For Their Non-Absorption: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that the abandonment of the scheme under which employees were initially appointed can be the sole reason for their non-absorption.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that, "mere placement of the said employees as similar to the other permanent employees do not vest in them a right to be regularized, rather the abandonment of the scheme under which they were initially appointed can be the sole reason for their non-absorption in the respondent Council. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the regularization as prayed by the petitioners in the present batch of petitions cannot be allowed as the TV 2020 scheme under which the petitioners were appointed no longer exist."
Counsel RK Kapoor, along with others, appeared for the petitioners, while ASG Chetan Sharma, CGSC Anurag Ahluwalia, along with others, appeared for the respondents.
The employees in these cases were hired by the respondent Council through advertisements after the approval of the Technology Vision 2020 (TV 2020 scheme) in 2005. They received offer letters with specific terms, indicating an initial one-year period. Despite completing probation and receiving extensions, they were not regularized, prompting them to file writ petitions.
The employees argued that their recruitment was for permanent posts approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA). The respondent Council claimed their appointments were contractual, tied to the TV 2020 project, and denied violating any constitutional rights. They contended that the project's conclusion led to the termination of contractual employees. The employees sought regular pay scale and benefits, while the respondent opposed this demand.
The High Court observed that, "the petitioners in all the cases were appointed under the TV 2020 umbrella scheme and were initially appointed for a specific period which got extended due to requirement of manpower on the project, however, the decision of closure of the said scheme would also lead to end of the employment of the employees working under the said scheme."
In light of the same, it was held that the petitions were devoid of any merit and were subsequently dismissed.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Counsels RK Kapoor, Diksha Gulati, Shweta Kapoor
Respondents: ASG Chetan Sharma, CGSC Anurag Ahluwalia, Counsels Amit Gupta, RV Prabhat, Saurabh Tripathi, Anuj Kishore Saxena
Cause Title: Ravindra Kumar & Anr. vs Technology Information, Forecasting & Assessment Council & Ors.
Click here to read/download Judgment
