National Institute of Epidemiology Represented by Its Director, Formerly Known as Officer-in-charge, Cjil Field Unit (icmr) and anr. Vs. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench), High Court and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderm. thanikachalam, j.1. the writ petitioners aggrieved by the orders of the central administrative tribunal in t.a. nos. 6 of 1999 and 4 of 1999 dated april 28, 2000 and august 31, 2000, have filed these writ petitions, seeking writ of certiorari, since they felt that the orders passed by the central administrative tribunal are not in accordance with the law and ratio laid down by the apex court.2. the second respondent, who is one and the same, in both the writ petitions, was appointed as laboratory technician in the icmr unit, for special studies in leprosy at central leprosy teaching research institute, chingleput from may 7, 1979 to june 30, 1983, thereafter as research assistant with effect from july 1, 1983 to march 31, 1987. subsequently, he was appointed as animal supervisor in the same icmr unit with effect from april 1, 1987 and he was relieved from the said service due to the termination or discontinuation of the scheme on march 31, 1989 afternoon. thereafter, he was appointed as research assistant under w.h.o. scheme on the immuni epidemiology aspects of leprosy, in which post now he is working, with effect from april 3, 1989.3. it seems, the past service of the second respondent, as stated above, has not been taken into consideration, either for fixing the qualifying service, for the purpose of pensionary benefits or for giving periodical increments and to claim arrears of such increments. the representations made by the second respondent to the authorities concerned ended in vain. under the abovesaid circumstances, the second respondent, in this writ petition, had filed t.a. no. 6 of 1999 on the file of the first respondent, seeking appropriate direction to the respondents, in that application, to count his past service of 10 years and two months, as qualifying service, for the purpose of pensionary benefits.4. the second respondent, in his representation, requested the writ petitioners, to consider his past service, in order to give periodical increments, since some of the persons, similarly placed, have been granted the said benefits, but unfortunately that was rejected finally on june 26, 1996. therefore, he had filed t.a. no. 4 of 1999 for quashing the same, with consequential relief to issue direction to give periodical increments and consequential arrears.5. both the t.as. were opposed specifically urging, that the appointment of the second respondent was purely temporary in nature and when a fresh appointment was given, the past service rendered in the temporary service could not be taken into consideration. the first respondent repelling the contentions of the writ petitioners, allowed two original applications, giving the reliefs claimed by the second respondent, which are under challenge, in these two writ petitions.6. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.7. the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the initial appointment as well as the subsequent appointment of the second respondent was purely temporary with specific information that he will not be regarded as employee of the indian council of medical research and therefore, when he was appointed in the new post, which he is now holding, it must be construed, a fresh appointment and in this view, consideration of previous service, either for qualifying service, for the purposes of pension or for grant of increments, would not arise.8. opposing the above submissions, the learned counsel for the second respondent would contend, though it is said in the appointment order, the appointment is purely temporary in nature, it is further stated that the post is likely to continue, that only recognising the right he earned in the previous post, the present appointment was given to him, that the position being so, the past service rendered by the second respondent, cannot be ignored altogether and the earlier period of service should be taken into account, for the purpose of qualifying service, in order to ascertain the pension, as well as to give periodical increment. it is the further submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent, that to one hari krishnan and raman, who are similarly placed, the benefit of past service had been extended and the position being so, the non-extension of the same benefit to the second respondent, is discriminatory, arbitrary and that too, against the natural justice.9. as per the appointment order dated april 28, 1979, the second respondent was appointed as laboratory technician. the order says, 'the post is purely temporary at present but is likely to continue'. it says further, that he will not be regarded as employee of the indian council of medical research. admittedly, thereafter also, after the scheme was over, with effect from july 1, 1983, he was appointed as research assistant and subsequently appointed as animal supervisor, from which post he was relieved on march 31, 1989 a.n. the second respondent was once again appointed as research assistant, in which post, he is working.10. the learned counsel for the petitioners very much relied upon the original appointment order, which says that the post is purely temporary. when he was appointed as research assistant, as per order dated january 24, 1989, the order says, the appointment in w.h.o. scheme will be treated as fresh and the benefit of past service rendered in icmr unit/scheme will not be allowed, for pay protection in the new appointment in w.h.o. scheme, thereby showing that the past service is not recognised, for any purpose. because of this reason alone, the second respondent made several representations and ultimately moved the central administrative tribunal and succeeded. if the second respondent has not inherited any right for the subsequent appointment in the council, on the basis of the past service, then taking into consideration the appointment order, treating the past service as 'temporary' one, it could be ignored. on the other hand, for all practical purposes, had the second respondent been treated as icmr employee and because of the past service rendered by him, a new appointment has been given, then in our considered opinion, the past service should be taken into consideration, for the purpose of quantifying the qualifying service, for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as well as for giving increment also and denial of the same may not be proper.11. the appointment order dated april 28, 1979 would state that the post is purely temporary. a legitimate expectation was given in the order itself, as if the post is likely to continue, which came to be true also, in this case, by the subsequent appointments. if the post was purely temporary, it has nothing to do with as icmr staff, then at the end of the period, he would have been automatically relieved or terminated from the service in that case, there would not have been any need or occasion, for considering him, for the appointments in the icmr unit, when vacancy had arisen, considering him as icmr staff.12. the director general of health services, leprosy division, has addressed a letter to the director, cltri, chingleput on december 28, 1988 , wherein this respondent has been treated as the employees of icmr unit and in view of the same, a recommendation was also made, for absorbing the temporary employees, in the regular establishment of cltri, which would indicate, that the employees have acquired right, for the continuation of the post or for some new appointments, whenever vacancy arises. in the letter dated january 24, 1989 also, it is said, 'it is proposed to fill up the vacancies of research assistants in the w.h.o. schemes, by appointment of suitable persons now working in the icmr unit/scheme, whose services are discontinued from march 31, 1989 due to termination of the schemes', though on certain conditions. this would indicate that the clause in the original appointment order, that the employee will not be regarded as an employee of indian council of medical research is not intended to give effect and that is why, whenever occasion had arisen, these employees were treated as the persons working in the icmr unit/scheme treating as integral part of the council. when the appointment order was issued on march 28, 1989 for the appointment of research assistant also, the second respondent is described as animal supervisor in icmr, thereby showing that for all practical purposes, he was treated as an employee of icmr, though certain conditions were contemplated. when the proposal was initiated for the appointment of five persons, in the memorandum dated january 24, 1989, it is said 'no benefit of the past service rendered in the icmr scheme will be allowed for pay protection in the new appointment in w.h.o. scheme'. but, when the second respondent was informed about his appointment as research assistant, as per the memorandum dated march 28, 1989, we find no such clause, though it could be said both should be read together. after the appointment, the director of central jalma institute for leprosy, sanctioned the appointment of the second respondent as laboratory technician as per the memorandum dated june 21, 1989, which is available at page 10 of the type set. in this memorandum, it is said that the service rendered outside the institute (council) will not count for purpose of leave, grant of increment etc., thereby showing that the service rendered within the institute will be taken into account, for the purpose of leave, grant of increment etc.13. all the correspondences available on record would suggest, that for all the purposes, the second respondent has been treated as the icmr staff and he was never treated as outsider and therefore, the service rendered within the institute should be taken into account, for the purpose of granting increment, in addition to computing the qualifying service, for pensionary benefits also.14. admittedly, the second respondent has been working in different units of the icmr, continuously, in various capacities, that too always under the control of the icmr from the date of his entering into service. under the above facts and circumstances of the case, the above action and conduct of the writ petitioners, in denying the legitimate right of the 2nd respondent, which he had acquired by past service is, in our considered opinion, not only unjust, but also illegal, eroding the natural justice.15. admittedly, one s. harikrishnan, who was working as animal supervisor like the second respondent, joined in cjil field unit, avadi and his past services was taken into account, as recommended by the selection committee. this second respondent is also similarly placed in the same position and we find no reason, why the same protection was not given to the second respondent. in this view also, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent, there is clear discrimination among the equals, similarly placed persons, which is not permissible and against the established judicial pronouncement. in this view also, when a similarly placed person was given the benefit, regarding the past service rendered by him, under the icmr scheme at cltri, the same kind of benefit should have been extended to the second respondent and in this view the discrimination should be set aside. considering all these materials, the first respondent came to an irresistible conclusion that there was clear discrimination and the failure on the part of the writ petitioners, in not taking the past service rendered by the second respondent, is against law, and allowed the two applications, in which we find no error of law or any other infirmity, warranting our interference.16. the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their conclusion, that the temporary service rendered by the employee cannot be counted, for the purpose of retiral benefits relied on a decision in union of india and ors. v. k. g. r. panicker and ors. : [1998]3scr38 . in this case, the apex court has ruled that service rendered as project casual labourers by employees, who were absorbed at regular temporary permanent posts cannot be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits. as seen from the facts of that case, casual labourer employed in the indian railway got grant of temporary status through writ petitions before the supreme court. the post was not given as routine or otherwise, recognising the previous right or taking into consideration that the casual labourers are working in the same unit or something like that. considering the facts of that case, and the appointment, in pursuance of court order, in our considered view, that ratio, could not be extended to this case. in the case on hand, the second respondent was appointed, taking into consideration, that he is the staff of the icmr unit and in fact recognising his past service, and he cannot be equated with a project casual labourer, who got temporary appointment, on the basis of the court order. considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the ratio laid down by the apex court, fails to come to the aid of the writ petitioners.17. wayram singh v. himachal pradesh university, 1998 slr 130 relates to an ad hoc appointment, on purely temporary basis and that is the reason the apex court has held, that the petitioner is not entitled to be counted, for fixation of seniority, the period during which he worked as a clerk on purely temporary basis.18. in dhyan singh and ors. v. state of haryana, , it is held by the apex court, that an adult education supervisor recruited under a non-formal education scheme, is not entitled to claim the benefits of past service rendered, for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits, as well as for the purpose of fixation of pay, after the abolition of the scheme, when he was recruited to a regular post under the state government either with or without break of service. in the case involved in the above decision, the adult education supervisors were given posts, later the scheme was abolished, pursuance to the direction of the court, not recognizing the past service. it is also held that the continuation/engagement of the adult education supervisors under the specific scheme cannot be held to be an employment under any establishment of the government, since the schemes are taken up for certain contingencies when money for the same is provided either by the central government or at times by some foreign countries. factually, the case stands on different footing. the records would suggest that icmr, having different programmes, and research units under its control, and each unit is named depending upon the nature of job performed by them. the second respondent, whatever may be his designation, when given post always worked only under icmr, and now also, he is working in cltrl as aforementioned, the second respondent was always considered, for all practical purposes, as the staff of icmr unit, in which now he is working and therefore, it could be said safely, he is in continuous service under the council. the right claimed by the adult education supervisor in the above case was negatived, on the other ground also viz., that they were absorbed, as against regular post in the government on compassionate view and not on any rights which flowed from the past service rendered by the appellants therein under the scheme in question. in this case, as suggested by the correspondences and other materials on record, because of the past service rendered by the second respondent, he was considered for the post and appointed so and this being the position established, denying the benefit of past service rendered by the second respondent, is unjust and we would say, it is against the natural justice, arbitrary, that too when a similarly placed person was given all the benefits.19. the ratio laid down by the apex court in usha rani v. state industrial court, indore : (1986)illj120sc is applicable to the present case. in the case involved in the above decision, a question had arisen whether the employees of the clinic attached to bhilai steel plant at absorption could be treated as the employee of the bhilai steel plant, whether their service rendered as clinic employee could be treated as continuous, for the purpose of gratuity, retrenchment and leave etc. considering the fact, the clinic employees are the employees of bhilai steel plant, for all practical purposes, the apex court had ruled the employees could not be treated as fresh employees from the data of absorption and their services since the commencement of employment would be treated as continuous, for the purpose of gratuity, retrenchment and leave etc.20. here also, only in the icmr unit, under various capacities, of course, under various units or schemes, the second respondent was working, continuously, till he was appointed as the research assistant, under the present post. except a break in service for two days or so, there is a continuity of services and considering the period of service from 1979, the break in service if any, from march 31, 1989 to april 3, 1989 could be condoned, as rightly observed by the tribunal, thereby doing justice, to a person, who served in this council.21. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law quoted above, we are of the firm opinion, that the past service rendered by the second respondent cannot be ignored and the same has to be taken into account, as claimed by him, for which purpose, the applications are allowed. we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the tribunal and the findings deserve acceptance.22. the writ petitions are dismissed. no costs. connected w.p.m.ps. are closed.

Judgment:
ORDER

M. Thanikachalam, J.

1. The writ petitioners aggrieved by the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 6 of 1999 and 4 of 1999 dated April 28, 2000 and August 31, 2000, have filed these writ petitions, seeking writ of certiorari, since they felt that the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal are not in accordance with the law and ratio laid down by the Apex Court.

2. The second respondent, who is one and the same, in both the writ petitions, was appointed as Laboratory Technician in the ICMR Unit, for Special Studies in Leprosy at Central Leprosy Teaching Research Institute, Chingleput from May 7, 1979 to June 30, 1983, thereafter as Research Assistant with effect from July 1, 1983 to March 31, 1987. Subsequently, he was appointed as Animal Supervisor in the same ICMR Unit with effect from April 1, 1987 and he was relieved from the said service due to the termination or discontinuation of the scheme on March 31, 1989 afternoon. Thereafter, he was appointed as Research Assistant under W.H.O. Scheme on the Immuni Epidemiology aspects of leprosy, in which post now he is working, with effect from April 3, 1989.

3. It seems, the past service of the second respondent, as stated above, has not been taken into consideration, either for fixing the qualifying service, for the purpose of pensionary benefits or for giving periodical increments and to claim arrears of such increments. The representations made by the second respondent to the authorities concerned ended in vain. Under the abovesaid circumstances, the second respondent, in this writ petition, had filed T.A. No. 6 of 1999 on the file of the first respondent, seeking appropriate direction to the respondents, in that application, to count his past service of 10 years and two months, as qualifying service, for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

4. The second respondent, in his representation, requested the writ petitioners, to consider his past service, in order to give periodical increments, since some of the persons, similarly placed, have been granted the said benefits, but unfortunately that was rejected finally on June 26, 1996. Therefore, he had filed T.A. No. 4 of 1999 for quashing the same, with consequential relief to issue direction to give periodical increments and consequential arrears.

5. Both the T.As. were opposed specifically urging, that the appointment of the second respondent was purely temporary in nature and when a fresh appointment was given, the past service rendered in the temporary service could not be taken into consideration. The first respondent repelling the contentions of the writ petitioners, allowed two original applications, giving the reliefs claimed by the second respondent, which are under challenge, in these two writ petitions.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the initial appointment as well as the subsequent appointment of the second respondent was purely temporary with specific information that he will not be regarded as employee of the Indian Council of Medical Research and therefore, when he was appointed in the new post, which he is now holding, it must be construed, a fresh appointment and in this view, consideration of previous service, either for qualifying service, for the purposes of pension or for grant of increments, would not arise.

8. Opposing the above submissions, the learned counsel for the second respondent would contend, though it is said in the appointment order, the appointment is purely temporary in nature, it is further stated that the post is likely to continue, that only recognising the right he earned in the previous post, the present appointment was given to him, that the position being so, the past service rendered by the second respondent, cannot be ignored altogether and the earlier period of service should be taken into account, for the purpose of qualifying service, in order to ascertain the pension, as well as to give periodical increment. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent, that to one Hari Krishnan and Raman, who are similarly placed, the benefit of past service had been extended and the position being so, the non-extension of the same benefit to the second respondent, is discriminatory, arbitrary and that too, against the natural justice.

9. As per the appointment order dated April 28, 1979, the second respondent was appointed as Laboratory Technician. The order says, 'the post is purely temporary at present but is likely to continue'. It says further, that he will not be regarded as employee of the Indian Council of Medical Research. Admittedly, thereafter also, after the scheme was over, with effect from July 1, 1983, he was appointed as Research Assistant and subsequently appointed as Animal Supervisor, from which post he was relieved on March 31, 1989 A.N. The second respondent was once again appointed as Research Assistant, in which post, he is working.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners very much relied upon the original appointment order, which says that the post is purely temporary. When he was appointed as Research Assistant, as per order dated January 24, 1989, the order says, the appointment in W.H.O. Scheme will be treated as fresh and the benefit of past service rendered in ICMR Unit/Scheme will not be allowed, for pay protection in the new appointment in W.H.O. Scheme, thereby showing that the past service is not recognised, for any purpose. Because of this reason alone, the second respondent made several representations and ultimately moved the Central Administrative Tribunal and succeeded. If the second respondent has not inherited any right for the subsequent appointment in the council, on the basis of the past service, then taking into consideration the appointment order, treating the past service as 'temporary' one, it could be ignored. On the other hand, for all practical purposes, had the second respondent been treated as ICMR employee and because of the past service rendered by him, a new appointment has been given, then in our considered opinion, the past service should be taken into consideration, for the purpose of quantifying the qualifying service, for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as well as for giving increment also and denial of the same may not be proper.

11. The appointment order dated April 28, 1979 would state that the post is purely temporary. A legitimate expectation was given in the order itself, as if the post is likely to continue, which came to be true also, in this case, by the subsequent appointments. If the post was purely temporary, it has nothing to do with as ICMR staff, then at the end of the period, he would have been automatically relieved or terminated from the service in that case, there would not have been any need or occasion, for considering him, for the appointments in the ICMR Unit, when vacancy had arisen, considering him as ICMR Staff.

12. The Director General of Health Services, Leprosy Division, has addressed a letter to the Director, CLTRI, Chingleput on December 28, 1988 , wherein this respondent has been treated as the employees of ICMR Unit and in view of the same, a recommendation was also made, for absorbing the temporary employees, in the regular establishment of CLTRI, which would indicate, that the employees have acquired right, for the continuation of the post or for some new appointments, whenever vacancy arises. In the letter dated January 24, 1989 also, it is said, 'It is proposed to fill up the vacancies of Research Assistants in the W.H.O. Schemes, by appointment of suitable persons now working in the ICMR Unit/Scheme, whose services are discontinued from March 31, 1989 due to termination of the schemes', though on certain conditions. This would indicate that the clause in the original appointment order, that the employee will not be regarded as an employee of Indian Council of Medical Research is not intended to give effect and that is why, whenever occasion had arisen, these employees were treated as the persons working in the ICMR Unit/Scheme treating as integral part of the council. When the appointment order was issued on March 28, 1989 for the appointment of Research Assistant also, the second respondent is described as Animal Supervisor in ICMR, thereby showing that for all practical purposes, he was treated as an employee of ICMR, though certain conditions were contemplated. When the proposal was initiated for the appointment of five persons, in the memorandum dated January 24, 1989, it is said 'No benefit of the past service rendered in the ICMR Scheme will be allowed for pay protection in the new appointment in W.H.O. Scheme'. But, when the second respondent was informed about his appointment as Research Assistant, as per the memorandum dated March 28, 1989, we find no such clause, though it could be said both should be read together. After the appointment, the Director of Central JALMA Institute for Leprosy, sanctioned the appointment of the second respondent as Laboratory Technician as per the memorandum dated June 21, 1989, which is available at page 10 of the type set. In this Memorandum, it is said that the service rendered outside the Institute (Council) will not count for purpose of leave, grant of increment etc., thereby showing that the service rendered within the institute will be taken into account, for the purpose of leave, grant of increment etc.

13. All the correspondences available on record would suggest, that for all the purposes, the second respondent has been treated as the ICMR Staff and he was never treated as outsider and therefore, the service rendered within the institute should be taken into account, for the purpose of granting increment, in addition to computing the qualifying service, for pensionary benefits also.

14. Admittedly, the second respondent has been working in different units of the ICMR, continuously, in various capacities, that too always under the control of the ICMR from the date of his entering into service. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, the above action and conduct of the writ petitioners, in denying the legitimate right of the 2nd respondent, which he had acquired by past service is, in our considered opinion, not only unjust, but also illegal, eroding the natural justice.

15. Admittedly, one S. Harikrishnan, who was working as Animal Supervisor like the second respondent, joined in CJIL Field Unit, Avadi and his past services was taken into account, as recommended by the selection committee. This second respondent is also similarly placed in the same position and we find no reason, why the same protection was not given to the second respondent. In this view also, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent, there is clear discrimination among the equals, similarly placed persons, which is not permissible and against the established judicial pronouncement. In this view also, when a similarly placed person was given the benefit, regarding the past service rendered by him, under the ICMR Scheme at CLTRI, the same kind of benefit should have been extended to the second respondent and in this view the discrimination should be set aside. Considering all these materials, the first respondent came to an irresistible conclusion that there was clear discrimination and the failure on the part of the writ petitioners, in not taking the past service rendered by the second respondent, is against law, and allowed the two applications, in which we find no error of law or any other infirmity, warranting our interference.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their conclusion, that the temporary service rendered by the employee cannot be counted, for the purpose of retiral benefits relied on a decision in Union of India and Ors. v. K. G. R. Panicker and Ors. : [1998]3SCR38 . In this case, the Apex Court has ruled that service rendered as Project Casual Labourers by employees, who were absorbed at regular temporary permanent posts cannot be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits. As seen from the facts of that case, casual labourer employed in the Indian Railway got grant of temporary status through writ petitions before the Supreme Court. The post was not given as routine or otherwise, recognising the previous right or taking into consideration that the casual labourers are working in the same unit or something like that. Considering the facts of that case, and the appointment, in pursuance of Court Order, in our considered view, that ratio, could not be extended to this case. In the case on hand, the second respondent was appointed, taking into consideration, that he is the staff of the ICMR Unit and in fact recognising his past service, and he cannot be equated with a Project Casual Labourer, who got temporary appointment, on the basis of the Court Order. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, fails to come to the aid of the writ petitioners.

17. Wayram Singh v. Himachal Pradesh University, 1998 SLR 130 relates to an ad hoc appointment, on purely temporary basis and that is the reason the Apex Court has held, that the petitioner is not entitled to be counted, for fixation of seniority, the period during which he worked as a clerk on purely temporary basis.

18. In Dhyan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, , it is held by the Apex Court, that an Adult Education Supervisor recruited under a non-formal Education Scheme, is not entitled to claim the benefits of past service rendered, for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits, as well as for the purpose of fixation of pay, after the abolition of the scheme, when he was recruited to a regular post under the State Government either with or without break of service. In the case involved in the above decision, the Adult Education Supervisors were given posts, later the scheme was abolished, pursuance to the direction of the Court, not recognizing the past service. It is also held that the continuation/engagement of the Adult Education Supervisors under the specific scheme cannot be held to be an employment under any establishment of the Government, since the schemes are taken up for certain contingencies when money for the same is provided either by the Central Government or at times by some foreign countries. Factually, the case stands on different footing. The records would suggest that ICMR, having different programmes, and research units under its control, and each unit is named depending upon the nature of job performed by them. The second respondent, whatever may be his designation, when given post always worked only under ICMR, and now also, he is working in CLTRL As aforementioned, the second respondent was always considered, for all practical purposes, as the staff of ICMR Unit, in which now he is working and therefore, it could be said safely, he is in continuous service under the council. The right claimed by the Adult Education Supervisor in the above case was negatived, on the other ground also viz., that they were absorbed, as against regular post in the Government on compassionate view and not on any rights which flowed from the past service rendered by the appellants therein under the Scheme in question. In this case, as suggested by the correspondences and other materials on record, because of the past service rendered by the second respondent, he was considered for the post and appointed so and this being the position established, denying the benefit of past service rendered by the second respondent, is unjust and we would say, it is against the natural justice, arbitrary, that too when a similarly placed person was given all the benefits.

19. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Usha Rani v. State Industrial Court, Indore : (1986)ILLJ120SC is applicable to the present case. In the case involved in the above decision, a question had arisen whether the employees of the clinic attached to Bhilai Steel Plant at absorption could be treated as the employee of the Bhilai Steel Plant, whether their service rendered as Clinic employee could be treated as continuous, for the purpose of gratuity, retrenchment and leave etc. Considering the fact, the Clinic employees are the employees of Bhilai Steel Plant, for all practical purposes, the Apex Court had ruled the employees could not be treated as fresh employees from the data of absorption and their services since the commencement of employment would be treated as continuous, for the purpose of gratuity, retrenchment and leave etc.

20. Here also, only in the ICMR Unit, under various capacities, of course, under various units or schemes, the second respondent was working, continuously, till he was appointed as the Research Assistant, under the present post. Except a break in service for two days or so, there is a continuity of services and considering the period of service from 1979, the break in service if any, from March 31, 1989 to April 3, 1989 could be condoned, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, thereby doing justice, to a person, who served in this council.

21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law quoted above, we are of the firm opinion, that the past service rendered by the second respondent cannot be ignored and the same has to be taken into account, as claimed by him, for which purpose, the applications are allowed. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and the findings deserve acceptance.

22. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.