BY HON'BLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. This O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: 8(i) Issuance of a direction to respondents to release the salary of applicant for a period of more than 20 months which has not been paid to him since April, 2013.
(ii) Further issue a direction to respondents to release the salary of applicant on or before 7th of every months as the applicant is an employee of District Disability Rehabilitation Centre of District Red Cross Society, Rohtak.
(iii) Further for issuance of direction to respondent no.1 to grant sanction for extension of applicants service because he was appointed against a vacant sanctioned post of Cobbler in District Handicapped Welfare Centre.
2. Averment has been made in the O.A. that the applicant was engaged as Cobbler against vacant post by Distt. Red Cross Society on 21.08.2001 for a period of 89 days in the District Handicapped Welfare Centre of District Red Cross Society, Rohtak and was being paid Rs.2460/- per month as honorarium (Annexure A-1). The applicant continued working on 89 days basis after getting extension of service till the year 2006. In the year 2006, the applicant was duly selected by a Selection Committee and appointed against a vacant sanctioned post of Prosthetic/Orthotics Technician on 12.10.2006 by respondent no.3. After his selection the applicant was given appointment letter dated 20.10.2006 and is working on the said post without any break till date. The working of the District Handicapped Welfare Centre is under the supervision and control of Secretary, District Red Cross Society, Rohtak. For the last about more than 13 years, the applicant has been associated with respondents Society and he has been performing his duties and has an unblemished service record till date. Copy of the selection letter dated 12.10.2006 and second appointment letter dated 20.10.2006 of the applicant is annexed (Annexure A-2 Colly). Though the applicant had been selected and appointed on the post of Prosthetic/Orthotics Technician by the respondent no.3 but no salary was received from respondent no.1 under the title of the post of Prosthetic/Orthotics Technician but the same was received under the head of Cobbler. Initially the applicant was paid his salary within first seven days of the month but now it is more than twenty months since he has not been paid his salary. Last salary received by him was of March, 2013 despite the fact that the work is being taken from him regularly. No adverse order or otherwise has been passed by respondents against the applicant till date. The applicant has made several verbal requests to respondent no.3 personally and has sent several written requests to him seeking payment of his salaries for all these months but to no avail.
3. After applicants appointment in the year 2006 till date the salary of the applicant was paid to him by respondent no.3 after receiving grant-in-aid from respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 always sent sanction for the working and payment of salary of the applicant. Every year salary of the applicant was received by the office of respondent no.3 in the name of the applicant @ Rs.8000/-p.m. till 2009-2014. The salary has been shown to have increased to Rs.10,000/- in the Budget of 2014-15 (Annexure A-3). A reading of the Budget estimate and receipt for the year 2009-2014 and 2014-2015 clearly showed that the salary of the applicant is being duly received by the respondent no.3 but due to the reasons best know to him, the same has not been paid to the applicant since April 2013.
4. In April, 2013 when the applicant demanded his salary, the Accountant of respondent no.3 immediately informed the applicant that the sanction for extension of his service and release of his salary had not been received from respondent no.1 thus he cannot be paid salary and informed that since the same is awaited, he should continue working and marking attendance in a separate register in his office instead of marking the same in the Centre register. In this way, office of respondent no.3 started marking applicants attendance in a separate register in his office but despite taking work from the applicant he denied payment of salary in the garb of the reason that the sanction for extension of his service has not been received from respondent no.1. Applicant represented to respondent no.2 and informed him about the misconduct of the official of respondent no.3 and once again requested him to pay his due salary for a period of more than eighteen months i.e. since April 2013 onwards and requested him to seek sanction for extension of his service because he is a poor man and it would be very difficult for him to make both ends meet without the job. Copy of the latest representation dated 24.09.2014 is appended (Annexure A-4). Though there are clear and specific Rules and instructions not to delay the salary of any employee for even a day beyond 7th of every month still the applicant has not been paid his salary even after a delay of 20 months by now. Due to this inaction of respondents the applicant is facing acute financial hardship.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 it has been stated that the applicant never remained in service in continuity. Initially, the applicant was engaged for a period of 89 days at the rate of Rs.2460/-p.m. as salary from 30.09.2001 to 30.11.2001. The services of the applicant were not extended and thereafter, he was engaged for two months on 27.12.2001 on daily wages of Rs.95/-per day. This tenure was not continued. The applicant was again re-engaged w.e.f. 01.05.2002 at the rate of Rs.95/- per day for a period from 01.05.2002 to 29.07.2002 and thereafter he performed his duty as daily wager. In October, 2006 the applicant applied for the post of Prosthetic/Orthotics Technician in District Disability and Rehabilitation Centre for which interview was conducted on 12.10.2006 for which he was selected on contractual basis up to 31.03.2007. It was the condition of appointment at the time of issuance that appointment letter carries no promise of subsequent permanent or temporary employment. District Disability and Rehabilitation Centre is an independent project which is being run under the supervision of District Red Cross Society for which separate funds are received through grant in aid from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The employment of the applicant was never by or with District Red Cross Society. It is an independent project which discontinued after 31.03.2011. The applicant was given fresh engagement in DHWC, another independent project on DC rates from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. Thereafter, he was re-engaged on DC rates in the same project from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. However, his services were not continued and his application for extension of service was not considered.
6. The applicant was selected in the interview conducted in District Disability and Rehabilitation Centre for engagement of employee on contractual basis for a period ending on 31.03.2007. Thereafter, he was re-engaged on year to year basis and after 31.03.2013 his services were no more required hence the same were not continued. The documents being relied upon by the applicant were only budget estimates that were not approved and sanctioned. The amount received was minus the salary of the applicant and no amount under the head of salary for the applicant was received from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Salary is to be paid to an employee who is in service or whose services have been availed by the department and in view of the fact that services of the applicant were not availed after 31.03.2013 hence he is not entitled for any relief of payment of wages.
7. No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the applicant.
8. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents were heard on 30.07.2015 invoking Rule 15 of the C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and order was reserved in the matter. Before the judgment could be pronounced it has come to our notice that this Tribunal in a bunch of petitions including O.A. NO 060/00267/2014 titled Janak Raj Verma Vs. Union of India & Others has held that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the State or District Red Cross societies, and this matter pertains to District Red Cross Society. Relevant portion of that order is extracted herein under: 13. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (13 of 1985), the Central Government issued a Notification dated 1.12.2008 fixing 15th day of December, 2008 as the date on and from which the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the said Act shall apply to the organizations mentioned therein including Indian Red Cross Society (IRCS). The relevant entry is reproduced as under:- No. Name of the Corporation / Society/ Other authority Status 1to189 Xxx Xxx 190 Indian Red Cross Society (IRCS) Statutory Autonomous Organization under Ministry of Health & Family Welfare 191 Medical Council of India Statutory Autonomous Organization under Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
14. It is on the basis of the aforesaid notification that the respondents before the Additional District Judge, Ambala, took a plea that since the Indian Red Cross Society has been brought within the purview of jurisdiction of this Tribunal, the case was required to be sent to this Tribunal for adjudication. It is on their own application and plea that the appeal was allowed and case was sent to the Civil Court for transferring it to this Tribunal for adjudication. Now, the same respondents in their wisdom have taken an objection that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate over the issue.
15. Finding the contradictory stand taken by the respondents, a Bench of this Tribunal on 3.8.2015 directed the District Red Cross Society to file an affidavit as to whether they have an independent registration or they are part of the Indian Red Cross Society.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced copy of a letter dated 1.4.2014 issued by the Indian Red Cross Society, New Delhi to one Sh. J.R. Verma, of Ambala City in response to information sought under RTI Act, 2005. The same also talks about nature and character of District Red Cross Society and provides as under :- All the State/UT/District Branches of Indian Red Cross Society are financially and administratively independent entities. the Policies and functions of all the State/UT/District Red Cross Branches are being managed by their respective Branch Committees. It is therefore the relevant information is not available with IRCS, NHQ
17. The stand taken by the Indian Red Cross Society gives credence to the view taken by us as noticed above that State or District Red Cross Societies have independent existence and they are not part and parcel of the Indian Red Cross Society and as such these societies being run at State/District level would not come within the purview of jurisdiction of this Tribunal even after issuance of Notification dated 1.12.2008 as the same only talks of Indian Red Cross Society (IRCS) and not the Societies independently formed at State/District level. We, thus, hold that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the service disputes raised in these Original Applications/Transferred Applications. Hence this O.A. is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The applicant is at liberty to approach the appropriate legal forum for redressal of his grievance. (DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh. Dated: O.A. No.060/01021/2014