DISTRICT REHABILITATION OFFICER AND ORS. versus JAY KISHORE MAITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1011 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

DISTRICT REHABILITATION OFFICER AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
JAY KISHORE MAITY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER I 0, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India-Article I 42-Scheme for rehabilitation of 
disabled people introduced by Central Government providing financial 
assistance-District Rehabilitation centres set up in the State-Workers C 
employed in the Centres with pay scales of State Government employees-
Petitions before Central Administrative Tribunal by workers for directions to 
hold that they are Central Government employees-Tribunal and High Court 
holding that the workers are Central Government employees-Correctness 
of-Held, on facts, Tribunal did not assign reasons or/and made analysis of 
available 'materials before holding that they are Central Government D 
employees-However, due to discontinuation of the Scheme, invoking 
jurisdiction under Article I 42 of the Constitution, appropriate directions 
given for absorption of the workers by Central and State Governments-
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and 
Full Participation) Act, 1995. 
E 
A scheme for rehabilitation of disabled people was introduced by Central 
Government providing financial assistance. Several District Rehabilitation 
centers were established in the States to carry out various pilot projects 
started under the Scheme. Officers of State Governments were drawn and 
appointed as Project Coordinators and several workers were employed in the F 
Centres with pay scales of State Government employees. 
The respondents-workers filed petitions before Central Administrative 
Tribunal contending that they are Central Government employees and hence 
the terms and conditions of services of Central Government employees should 
be made applicable to them. The appellants raised a preliminary objection of G 
jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the petitions contending that they 
were State Government employees. The Tribunal allowed the applications of 
the respondents holding that they are Central Government employees since 
the Rehabilitation Centres are under direct control and funded by the Central 
lOll 
H 
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A Government. Write Petitions filed by the appellant before High Court were 
dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended the respondents were 
employees of the States; that wrong tests were applied to determine employer-
employee relationship; and that the effective control over the employees was 
B with the State Government. The appellants informed the Court that the projects 
have since been wound up and no budgetary provisions for payment of salaries 
are made with effect from 1st April 2006. 
The respondents contended that they are Central Government employees. 
The respondents appealed to the Court that having regard to the number of 
C years they had served in the projects, the Scheme should either be directed 
to be continued or they may be directed to be absorbed by Central Government 
or by State Governments. 
D 
Disposing of the appeals with directions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Parliament enacted the Perso_ns with Disabilities (Equal 
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The 
Act was enacted to give effect to the proclamation on the full participation 
and equality of people with disabilities on both Central and State Government. 
Implementation of its provisions is the primary responsibility of the State 
E Governments. The employees do not become the employees of the Central 
Government only because the project was conceived by it or it used to give 
directions from time to time. For determination of relationship of the employer 
and the employees, separate tests may have to be applied having regard to the 
factual matrix involved in each case. The parties did not adduce any oral 
evidence before the Central Administrative Tribunal The Tribunal opined that 
F the respondents are the employees of the Central Government without 
assigning any reasons and analysis of available materials. (1018-D, F, G] 
Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society v. State of TN. & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 514; 
Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation 
G Ltd. & Ors., [2005) 5 SCC 51; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. KGSD Canteen 
Employees' Welfare Assn. & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 567 referred to. 
1.3. Invoking jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution oflndia, 
the respondents who are inclin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.