Manoj Kumar Mudgal v. Indian Institute of Technology

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 28, 2014 'M'

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 28th July, 2014. + WP(C) No.6041/2001 MANOJ KUMAR MUDGAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi for Mr. A.K. De, Advocate. Versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates. AND WP(C) No. 6042/2001 RAJEEV TOKAS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi for Mr. A.K. De, Advocate. Versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Both petitions impugn the separate but identical Office Memorandums, both dated 10th July, 2001 of the respondent IIT, Delhi discontinuing the services of each of the petitioners as Swimming Coach- cum -Life Guard in the respondent IIT with immediate effect. The petitions also seek the relief of reinstatement of each of the petitioners with all consequential benefits and regularization of the services of the petitioners on the post of Swimming Coach- cum- Life Guard with consequential reliefs in that regard also. 2. Notice of the petitions was issued. Subsequently 'rule' was issued in both the petitions on 16th July, 2003. The petitions came up for hearing on 3rd July, 2014 when it was inquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to how the petitioners were entitled to the relief claimed of regularisation, particularly in view of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. The counsel for the petitioners on that day sought adjournment to obtain instructions whether the petitioners wanted to prosecute these petitions. Today the counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners want to press these petitions. The counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent IIT have been heard. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that; i) the respondent IIT, Delhi in April, 1998 invited applications for the post of Swimming Coach-cum- Life Guard; ii) the petitioner in WP(C) No.6041/2001 applied and appeared before the Five Member Interview Board and was selected and was issued an appointment letter dated 15th April, 1998; iii) sometime in April, 2000 the respondent IIT, Delhi again invited applications for the post of Swimming Coach-cum-Life Guard and the petitioner in WP(C) No.6042/2001 applied and appeared before the Five Member Interview Board and was selected and was issued an appointment letter dated 24th April, 2000; iv) however the appointment letters issued to both the petitioners stated the appointment was temporary and for a period of six months with a consolidated salary of Rs.4500/- p.m. in appointment letter dated 15th April, 1998 and of Rs.5000/- in the appointment letter dated 24th April, 2000 and the same was liable for termination on giving one month's notice in writing on either side; v) that another appointment letter was issued to the petitioner in WP(C) No.6041/2001 on 12th March, 1999 for a period of one year with effect from 1st April, 1999 with a consolidated salary of Rs.5500/- and also with a condition that the same was liable to be terminated by giving one month's notice on either side; vi) yet another appointment letter dated 24th April, 2000 was issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6041/2001 for a period of one year w.e.f. 1st May, 2000 on a consolidated salary of Rs.6000/- terminable on one month's notice on either side; vii) yet another appointment letter dated 9th April, 2001 was issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6041/2001, this time for a period of six months w.e.f. 16th April, 2001 on a consolidated salary of Rs.6200/- terminable on 15 days' notice on either side was issued; viii) similarly the petitioner in WP(C) No.6042/2001 was issued another appointment letter dated 9th April, 2001 for a period of six months w.e.f. 16th April, 2001 on a consolidated salary of Rs.5700/- terminable on 15 days' notice on other side; ix) however the respondent IIT vide Memorandums (s