HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** LPA No. 300 of 2008 (O&M) *** M.L.Chhabra & Ors Versus C.C.S. H.A.U Hisar and another. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh. *** Present: Shri S.K.Arrarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Arvind Seth, Advocate and Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate, for HAU. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This appeal under the Letters Patent Act is directed against an order dated November 17, 2008 passed by a Single Bench of this Court, whereby CWP No. 3351 of 1994 seeking regularization of the services of the petitioners (appellants herein) as Research Associates, has been dismissed. The Single Judge has while doing so relied upon as many as five different decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court in identical circumstances holding that the engagement / employment of the Research Associates in the respondent-University were purely temporary in nature and co-terminus with the project in connection with which such engagements were made. Learned Single Judge has also held that the decisions rendered by this Court in the earlier cases do not recognize any right in favour of such temporary Research Associates to claim any benefit beyond the terms of the appointment on which they were engaged. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we see no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. As rightly held by the learned Single -2- LPA No. 300 of 2008 (O&M) Judge, this court has in CWP No. 19383 of 2005 Jatinder Kumar Versus Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others decided on 2.5.2006 ; CWP No. 1747 of 2006 Jasbir Singh Hooda Vs. Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others decided on August 29, 2006; CWP No. 16918 of 2006 Dr. Nisha Sangwsan Vs. Chaudhary Charan Singh HAU and others decided on November 21, 2006; CWP No. 18645 of 2005 Anita Punia Vs. CCS HAU, Hisar and others decided on December 01, 2006; CWP No. 14665 of 2005 Rakesh Kumar Vs. CCS HAU, Hisar and others decided on March 05, 2007 and LPA No. 78 of 2008 in CWP No. 14665 of 2005 decided on September 10, 2008 taken a consistent view that the engagement of Research Associates in connection with the projects funded by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi are contractual engagements co-terminus with the life of the project which do not entitle those engaged for such projects to claim any regularization. Sitting in Division Bench, we are bound by the decisions referred to above rendered by benches of Co- ordinate jurisdiction. That apart from a communication which the petitioners- appellants have themselves placed on the record it is seen that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi has been receiving requests / representations from the Research Associates and the Senior Research Fellows working on various projects funded by the said Council but the ICAR has declined the said prayers. The council has made it clear that the engagements of Research Associates on the projects funded by it are limited to the duration of the project and that the appointments made by the University are co-terminus with the conclusion of the projects. The Council has in this regard issued a circular to all the Vice Chancellors of SAUs / Directors of ICAR Institutes. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that -3- LPA No. 300 of 2008 (O&M) the prayer for regularization made by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was legally untenable. Mr. Aggarwal however argued that the petitioners-appellants could at least be given the benefit of allowances that were payable to the employees of the Agriculture University especially when the nature of the duties discharged by the Research Associates was similar to those discharged by the said employees. The learned Single Judge has noticed this contention of the counsel but rejected the same. The Single Judge has taken the view that the petitioners being contractual employees employed for a specific project on the terms that are stipulated in their appointment letters, cannot claim any equality in terms, allowances or other conditions of service with the regular employees. There is, in our opinion no error in that line of reasoning. A reading of the appointment orders issued in favour of the appellants would show that the engagements/appointments of the appellants has been made on consolidated amount stipulated in the said orders. The appointment orders stipulate 15 days casual leave per year permissible to the Research Associates and the travelling allowance payable to them. The letter of appointment specifically states that the services of the Research Associates could be terminated at any time and that they will not be entitled to any C.P.F contribution. Suffice it to say that the terms and conditions on which the Research Associates were engaged are enumerated in the appointment letters issued in their favour. We asked Mr. Aggarwal, whether any amount payable to the appellants on those terms was with-held by the University. His answer was in the negative. All that he argued was that after 2002 the Indian Council of Agricultural Research has revised the amount payable to the Research Associates from Rs.12,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per month, which was denied to the appellants. It is at the same time not in dispute that the petitioners-appellants have been continued as -4- LPA No. 300 of 2008 (O&M) Research Associates by reason of interim orders of stay issued by this Court against their termination. Such being the position, the claim for payment of the revised emoluments payable to other associates selected and engaged in the projects funded by the Indian Council cannot possibly be accepted. The petitioners services having continued under the orders of the Court, all that they would be entitled to is the amount mentioned in the appointment letters issued in their favour. In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to interfere in this appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Jasbir Singh) Judge December 11, 2008 Malik