JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellant, i.e., University Grants Commission (UGC) against the order dated 15th January, 2002 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 434/99.
2. CWP No. 434/99 was filed by the Peons employed
by the UGC on adhoc basis. Earlier some
LDCs working on adhoc basis in UGC had also filed CWP
No. 1298/99. In the said CWP the UGC filed counter affidavit to the effect that it had undertaken to give preference to the said LDCs/petitioners in that writ petition for filling up of the posts on regular basis against the existing vacancies as well as vacancies which may arise in future. When CWP No. 434/99 came up for hearing on 15th January, 2002 the learned counsel for the UGC made a statement before the learned Single Judge that the decision taken in respect of the LDCs would apply in the case of the Peons as well. Recording that statement, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition.
3. However, it may be stated at this stage that during the pendency of the aforesaid CWP No. 434/99 the learned Single Judge had passed an interim order dated 25th January, 1999 directing the UGC not to disengage the petitioners/Peons. The UGC had filed an
application for vacating the said ex-parte ad interim
order dated 25th January, 1999. While this application
was pending the UGC filed another application being CM
No. 5570/2001 in which it al1eged that performance of
petitioners 1 and 4 was unsatisfactory and they were
deliberately not performing the duties allotted to
them. They were taking undue advantage of ad interim
order dated 25th January, 1999 and engaging themselves
in the acts of insubordination. It was, thus, stated
in the said application that the reason for disengaging
the petitioners 1 and 4 was not that they were working
on adhoc basis but their unsatisfactory work and
insubordination. It was further stated in para 10 of
the application as under:
“It may be stated that in so far as
Petitioner Nos. 2-3 and 5-9 are
concerned, they are being allowed to
continue to work in term of this Hon’ble
court order dated 25th January, 1999.
However, the Answering respondent
respectfully seeks variation of the said
order qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 and
seeks to discontinue their services as
they have indulged in acts of
indiscipline and insubordination and have
vitiated the working atmosphere. It is
most respectfully stated that the said
petitioners ought not to be all owed to
take advantage of the interim order dated
25th January, 1999 and 19th October, 2000
to continue to work without any
accountability to their superiors.”
4. On the basis of aforesaid averments in the application, the prayer made in the application was for variation of ex-parte order dated 25th January, 1999 to the extent that the services of the petitioners 1 and 4 in the said writ petition be permitted to discontinue.
5. On 15th January, 2002 while disposing of the writ petition in the manner stated above, the learned Single Judge passed the following order on CM No. 5570/2001:
” CM 5570/2001:
The procedure which has to be followed in terms of the undertaking given by the Respondents, aforesaid will also be applicable to the petitioner and in view thereof, the relief claimed for by respondent No. 2 in this application cannot be granted.
Application is dismissed.”
6. In the present appeal, the main grievance of the UGC is to the aforesaid order passed in CM No. 5570/2001. As far as order in the writ petition is concerned, the learned counsel for the UGC did not press the appeal nor it could be done as the said order in the writ petition is based on concession of the UGC itself, and therefore, it could not file any such appeal. In these circumstances, while admitting the appeal on 30th May, 2002 it was clarified that the said appeal was admitted only in respect of order passed in CM No. 5570/2001.
7. When the matter came up for hearing, after notice, on 26th July, 2002 nobody appeared on behalf of the UGC. We heard Ms. Aarti Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents who assisted us in perusing the records of the case as well.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and perusing the records, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not correct in dismissing the CM No. 5570/2001 only because of the statement/undertaking given by the UGC regarding regularisation of these Peons. As is clear from the narration of facts stated above, the prayer in this CM was entirely different. The UGC had sought variation of the ex-parte order dated 25th January, 1999 on the ground that in so far as petitioners 1 and 4 were concerned, they were not entitled to any regularisation and their services had to be disengaged because of unsatisfactory performance and insubordination. Even if the UGC took a policy decision and framed a scheme of regularisation for adhoc LDCs/Peons, as an employer/ it has right not to consider those adhoc Peons for regularisation whose services are not otherwise satisfactory or who have indulged in acts of insubordination.
9. This aspect of the matter was not at all considered and presumably the CM No. 5570/2001 was dismissed only under the impression that it was an application for vacation of ex-parte order which did not survive after the aforesaid orders passed in writ petition based on the concession of the UGC.
10. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge so far it relates to CM No. 5570/2001 and clarify that the
concession/undertaking given by the UGC would not be
applicable in the cases of petitioners 1 and 4 in the
writ petition (respondents 1 and 4 herein). Since the
UGC has level led allegations of indiscipline and
insubordination vitiating the working atmosphere in the
UGC, it would be necessary for the UGC to take any action after serving show cause notices to these Peons and giving them opportunity of being heard in consonance with the principles of natural justice. We are conscious of the fact that these Peons are working only as adhoc employees, and therefore, it would not be necessary to hold a full-fledged departmental enquiry. However still, because of the peculiar facts of this case when the UGC has decided to regularise other Peons for which Scheme is framed by it and it wants to deprive these two Peons to get this benefit, we are of the opinion that principles of natural justice would demand that at least opportunity of being heard should be given to these Peons when the UGC does not want to extend the benefit of consideration of their cases for regularisation which benefit it has agreed to bestow on other similarly situated persons. Keeping in view these facts, we have taken this view that at least show cause notice is required to be served upon these adhoc employees who are entitled to be heard before any ction is taken.
11. Ms. Aarti Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that inspite of ex-parte stay order, these Peons were disengaged from services and were not taken back.
12. The effect of the aforesaid order coupled with the fact that there was an interim order operating qua all the petitioners in the writ petition, the respondents 1 and 4 herein would also be deemed to be in service till action is taken against them after following the aforesaid procedure. It goes without saying that if any action adverse to these two employees is taken, they shall be at liberty to approach appropriate court of law challenging the said action.
13. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.