Age Relaxation Policy Insufficient for Contractual Employee Regularization Mandate: CAT - 2025-04-05

Contractual Employees' Regularization Claims Addressed by CAT, Court Urges Policy Re-evaluation

New Delhi, March 12, 2025 – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Principal Bench has addressed the petitions filed by contractual employees of the Delhi Government, examining the adequacy of the existing policy regarding their regularization. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta (Member J) and Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul (Member A), delivered a judgment on March 12, 2025, in a case transferred from the Delhi High Court. While not explicitly directing regularization, the Tribunal has urged the respondents to reconsider their policy in light of recent Supreme Court judgments favoring long-serving contractual employees.

Background: Cases Transferred from Delhi High Court

The case originated from Writ Petitions filed in the Delhi High Court by the Delhi State Contractual Employees Association and individual contractual employees like Ajay Kumar and others. These petitions challenged a circular, advertisement, and Office Memorandum issued by the Delhi Government, arguing they were discriminatory and unsustainable. The High Court, noting the pending duration of the petitions, transferred them to the CAT, where they were renumbered as OA No. 3837/2024 and OA No. 3841/2024.

Petitioners' Arguments: Regularization as a Right for Long-Serving Staff

Represented by Senior Advocate Shri Sanjoy Ghosh, the petitioners argued that they had been working on a contractual basis for an extended period, some since 1998, against substantive vacancies. They pointed to a previous Delhi High Court order in Sonia Gandhi & ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors. (2003), which directed the government to frame a regularization policy. The petitioners contended that the current policy, offering only age relaxation for fresh recruitment, fell short of the High Court’s directive and the principles of regularization laid down by the Supreme Court, particularly in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024). They argued that their long and continuous service, coupled with initial selection processes, warranted regularization.

Drawing on Jaggo , the petitioners emphasized the apex court's observation that long, uninterrupted service cannot be disregarded by merely labeling appointments as contractual, especially when employees perform essential duties. They cited excerpts from Jaggo , highlighting the misapplication of Uma Devi principles to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees and the distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments.

Respondents' Counter: Policy Compliance and Justification of Age Relaxation

The respondents, represented by Shri Amit Yadav, defended the existing policy of age relaxation as compliant with the High Court's direction to frame a policy. They argued that framing a policy was an executive function and the government had fulfilled this mandate. They highlighted that the policy had been upheld in previous court decisions and that similarly situated employees had availed age relaxation.

The respondents raised concerns about reservation policies, arguing that regularizing contractual employees without adhering to reservation norms for categories like Physically Handicapped and Ex-Servicemen would be unconstitutional. They also argued that the petitioners were given opportunities to participate in regular selection processes but had not availed them, thus disentitling them from regularization. Reliance was placed on judgments like Union of India Vs. Ilmo Devi and Ors. (2021) and State of Haryana Versus Piara Singh and Ors. (1992) to support the executive's policy-making domain and the necessity of regular recruitment processes. The respondents also invoked the principle of constructive res judicata, pointing to a previous Delhi High Court judgment upholding a similar age relaxation policy for Assistant Public Prosecutors.

Tribunal's Analysis: Policy Needs Re-evaluation, Constructive Res Judicata Not Applicable

The Tribunal addressed the issue of constructive res judicata raised by the respondents and concluded that it was not applicable in this case. It reasoned that the parties, subject matter, and issues in the previous writ petition concerning Assistant Public Prosecutors were not identical to the present case involving para-medical staff and the comprehensive inadequacy of the regularization policy beyond mere age relaxation.

While acknowledging the Sonia Gandhi High Court order, the Tribunal refrained from directly enforcing it, noting that the appropriate remedy for non-compliance might lie elsewhere. However, it assessed the policy's legitimacy independently.

The Tribunal observed,

> "To adjudicate the fourth issue we need to analyze whether the Policy dated 20.11.2020 is bad in law based on constitutional and statutory provisions pertaining to the issue at hand. The pleadings by the applicants in the instant case and the submission by the learned senior counsel on their behalf point out that not only the respondents could grant age relaxation, they should have gone further to regularize the contractual employees… in light of spirit of the judgment of the Delhi High court in Sonia Gandhi (supra) and the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Jaggo (supra)… Hence, the policy falls short of the essence of these judgments."

Despite acknowledging the policy's potential inadequacy in fully addressing the regularization issue in light of Jaggo , the Tribunal noted that the petitioners had not explicitly sought regularization in their prayers. It emphasized that policy-making was primarily an executive function and judicial interference was limited unless a policy violated constitutional or statutory provisions, which the petitioners had not demonstrably proven in this case.

Conclusion and Directions: Policy Re-evaluation Urged

Ultimately, the CAT disposed of the OAs without quashing the policy or ordering regularization. However, recognizing the implications of the Jaggo judgment and the long service of the contractual employees, the Tribunal directed the respondents to re-evaluate their regularization policy.

> "In view of the Apex Court judgment in Jaggo (supra) case, we restrain from passing any order in respect of the Policy dated 20.11.2020 and the subsequent advertisements issued by the respondents in pursuance to that policy. The respondents are directed to consider the suggestion given in paragraph 8.1 above within a time bound manner, preferably within a period 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

The Tribunal suggested considering an "omnibus policy" for contractual employees across all departments, consistent with Uma Devi as clarified by Jaggo . This judgment signals a potential shift towards a more comprehensive approach to addressing the long-standing issue of contractual employees' regularization in the Delhi Government.