DISTRICT REHABILITATION OFFICER Vs. JAY KISHORE MAITY
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on November 10,2006

DISTRICT REHABILITATION OFFICER Appellant
VERSUS
JAY KISHORE MAITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) Union of India filed a Scheme for Rehabilitation of the disabled people. The project started with financial assistance of Central Government/Union of India. The full financial assistance was extended till 1993, whereafter only 50% of financial assistance was provided for by the Central Government. The Union of India, however, took up the entire financial burden for the project with effect from 31.1.1998.
(2.) Pilot projects were started under which centres were established in several States of the country with a view to identify the services required by the disabled population, to assist the man power required for delivering those services to them or to work out the modalities for the types of man power etc. One of such centres was established in Kharagpur in the State of West Bengal and another in the district of Mysore in the State of Karnataka. For the purpose of execution of the said projects, a Project Co ordination Committee was constituted. A set of detailed guidelines were circulated. The Project Co ordinator would be the main agency to implement the Project and would function through Member Secretary of the State Level Advisory Committee. The Scheme dated 3.1.1983 was circulated with the concerned State Governments by the Joint Secretary of the Union of India. The total package of services for the disabled starting with awareness in the community and ending with their economic rehabilitation was to contain with the following elements: "1) Creation of community awareness about the disabled population in order to seek community participation in the measures for the welfare of the disabled. 2) parent counselling about the home care and management of the disabled child. 3) promote dissemination of information on prevention, early detection and possibilities of treatment of the disabled. 4) arrangements for screening of disabilities and early referrals. 5) arrangements for physical rehabilitation including medical or surgical intervention. 6) integration of disabled children in normal schools schedule and establishment of special schools wherever necessary. 7) provision of vocational training for the disabled. 8) employment guidance and placement services both in integrated as well as sheltered conditions of the disabled."
(3.) The category of employees found suitable for recruitment for the project were: (i) Community Health Workers; and (2) Anganwari Workers. The Scheme envisaged that the Pilot Scheme with the infrastructure provided should be utilized by the State Governments with an intent to continue the project. The infrastructures created for these pilot projects was expected to prove to be useful for training the required manpower for future pilot projects and similar centres which the State Governments may like to establish. The Project Co ordinators of the Rehabilitation Centres were the officers of the State Governments of States of West Bengal and Karnataka. They selected the employees for the said Rehabilitation Centres. The employees were offered a salary of Rs. 660/ in the scale of Rs.660 60 1100 50 5600. Indisputably they have been working for a long time. Initially as noticed hereinbefore, although funds were provided by an outside agency, the same have been taken over by the Central Government. Terms and conditions of service of the employees appointed were governed by the rules applicable to the employees of the State Governments. The pay scales applicable to employees of the State Government were also applied to their case. The employees, however, filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta as also Karnataka at Bangalore, inter alia, contending that they being the employees of the Central Government, the terms and conditions of services applicable to the Central Government should apply in their case also. A preliminary objection was taken as regards of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the premise that the applicants were the employees of the State Governments. By a judgment and order dated 14.7.2000, the Tribunal held: "12...So we are, therefore, of the clear opinion that applicants were appointed by the Project Officer for and on behalf of the Central Government and the Central Government had direct control over the DRC and fund is being provided by Central Government and we are satisfied from facts that the prima facie it is for determination of the relationship between the employer and the employee which is in existence in this case; Central Government is employer of the applicants and the employees are entitled to claim to be employees of the Central Government. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we find that there cannot be any dispute in this case that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the grievance of the applicants who were directly appointed and being controlled by the Central Government. It is true that the aforesaid applicants are getting the pay and allowances as per rate prescribed by the Govt. of West Bengal. It is found that the scale prescribed by the government of West Bengal has been adopted by the concerned authorities under the scheme. So, were adoption of the scale of the State Government does not disentitle the applicants the right of status of the Central Government employees under the scheme. 13. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that the applicants are the employees of the Central Government though their salary is being paid as per scale of the State Government. Under the circumstances stated above, we allow the application with a direction upon the respondents to treat the aforesaid applicants as employees of the Central Government and to grant the reliefs to the applicants in accordance with the rules in respect of salary, provident fund etc. with immediate effect. No cost." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.