news details |
|
|
| HC says tenure employee can't claim benefits of permanent worker | | | early times report
Jammu, Mar 28- In a Jammu University (JU) case, a high court division bench of chief justice F M Ibrahim Kalifulla and Justice Virender Singh today observed that a tenure employee could not claim the service benefits of a permanant employee. The court directive came in a petition filed by Onkar Singh Sudan, who, while serving as principal of government degree college, Kathua, had applied for the post of director colleges development council in JU. He was called for an interview to be held on November 9, 2001, at 3 p m in the office chambers of JU vice-chancellor. He faced the interview. On November 26, 2001, he was informed about the sanction for his appointment as director, college development council on a probation of two years. The scale of pay was also specified in the said order. He was to relieve Davinder Singh, who was holding the charge of that post. On November 27, 2001, the November 26 order was kept in abeyance, pending further orders. Thereafter, on December 7, 2001, another order was issued, appointing Sudan against a tenure post of 5 years as director colleges development council initially on probation for a period of two years, commencing from the date he assumed charge. It was also stated that his appointment would be governed by the provisions of Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969, and the statues/regulations made thereunder. The scale of pay was also mentioned in the said order.
Meanwhile, government degree college, Kathua, also issued its order on December 10, 2001, relieving Sudan of his duties as the college principal. Sudan submitted his joining report on December 10, 2001, in JU. The JU council, in its meeting held on June 21, 2004, considered his confirmation as director colleges development council from December 10, 2003, and resolved to confirm him against the said post. His tenure was further extended till he attained the age of superannuation as per the state government norms. For the period of extended tenure, he was to function as project director for the upcoming mini campus of the university at Poonch, apart from looking after his duties as director D D E, pending further orders. By a circular of May 28, 2007, it was notified that Sudan would get superannuated from the state government services on July 31, 2007 as per the records available with the registry.
After hearing the two sides, the division bench observed that having regard to the rule position as well as the factual matrix of the case, it did not find any scope to hold that the appellant's services in the university pursuant to his tenure appointment dated December 7, 2001, resulted in having become a permanent employee of the university on a regular basis. Further claim of the appellant that he was entitled to be continued in services up to the age of 60 years was also therefore not maintainable. The order of the single judge, therefore, does not call for interference. When by government order of July 3, 2007, the state government was prepared to transfer his services between 16-08-1973 and 09-12-2001 to the university, in as much as the division bench held that the appellant's lien in the government services was uninterrupted even by virtue of his tenure appointment in the university. The state government is bound to recognize him as its employee till he reached the age of superannuation on 31-07-07 by tagging along the services rendered by the appellant between 10-12-2001 and 31-07-07 in the tenure post of the 1st respondent while calculating the pensionary benefits payable to the appellant and for granting the same. The state can always adjust the pro-rata retirement benefits for the period for which the appellant's services were lent to the university from whatever grant-in-aid payable to the university. Therefore, while upholding the order of the single judge, we hold that the appellant continued to be in the state government services till he reached the age of superannuation as per the government rules on 31-07-07 and it is for the state to disburse the pensionary benefits payable to the appellant for the entire period of his services right from 16-03-1973 till 31-07-07 and grant such pensionary benefits expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of production of copy of this order. The DB also made it clear that it is open to the state government to adjust the retirement benefits for the period of services rendered by the appellant in the university between 10-12-2001 and 31-07-07 in the grant-in-aid payable to the university. The state government shall carry out the above said exercise expeditiously preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and disposed of the LPA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
