ROAR
Research, Opinions and Reviews:
Registered Users can write a blog/article/post up to 2,000 characters. The entire Law Fraternity is keen to hear from Lawyers, Solicitors, Judges and Legal professionals from respective Bar associations, state and territory to share ideas, give opinions and light on important matters.
Read More...
NEWS
BAR ASSOCIATION
LAW COLLEGE
EVENTS
TEMPLATES
SERVICES
JOB CENTRE
MOOT COURT
SL CONFIDENTIAL
RESOURCE CENTRE
Need a Lawyer
LAWYER’S FEE

Law Firm

***-****3910

SITIKANATHA MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Like
Comment
Share

0 Like |
0 Comment |
99 |
0 |
1 |
0

This case is by the appellant, he was entitled to be treated at par with other incumbents to the said 68 posts in respect of his past service of nine and a half year as Professor. His joining another higher post in the same Institute could not be read as excluding him from the benefit of regular appointment merely because few months before issuance of formal order, he had joined higher post. Once it is assumed that the appellant stood regularized as Professor, as indeed is the effect of documents referred to above w.e.f. 27th January, 1997, on the date of his appointment on 8th June, 2006 to the post of Director, he continued to have lien to the post of Professor to which he was regularly appointed which did not end on his appointment to the post of Director on contractual basis for a limited period. According to IITTM, on his joining the post of Director, his appointment was on contract basis. The said appointment de-barred the appellant from engaging in any other trade or business or employment without permission of the competent authority. The question for consideration is whether the appellant is deemed to have been regularized from 27th January, 1997 or is deemed to be working on contractual basis on the date of his appointment as Director on 8th June, 2006. Since the appellant was not an existing incumbent on the date of issuance of letter dated 31st October, 2006. Also, the appellant having been appointed in the year 1997 after due selection and covered by the recommendation of the SIU which recommendation was accepted by the Government of India, a decision to regularize incumbents of 68 posts clearly applied to the appellant. No doubt, the appellant had taken over as Director in the Institute but on that ground it will be unjust to deny him the benefit of the said regularization. Appellant also highlighted the departmental notings suggesting that after the completion of his tenure as Director, the appellant’s joining report as Professor may be accepted as he had neither resigned nor it was clearly mentioned that on joining as Director he will lose lien which is normally available. The appellant is deemed to have been regularized in service as Professor with effect from 27 January, 1997 and the decision of the Central Government dated 31st October,2006 as ratified by the BOG was applicable to him. Accordingly, competent authority to take a fresh decision on the issue of lien within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.