IMPORTANT POINT
Tribunals must provide reasoned orders addressing all objections raised by parties to ensure fair judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[“the Tribunal”, hereinafter ] reads as under:

“The present Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. Issue an order/direction to the respondents to grant the Applications the benefits of salary in proper pay scale, allowances and other benefits as being granted to regular malaria beldars/field workers.

b. Issue an order/direction to the respondents to grant the Applicants the benefits of revision of salary in terms of direction issued by this Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 5.4.2017 as passed in OA No. 3784/2015 and upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (civil) No. 755/2018 dated 31.01.2018, and grant the Applicants salary, allowances and other benefits accordingly.

c. Issue an order/direction to impose exemplary cost on the respondent.

d. and pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Pursuant to notice, the respondent has filed a detailed counter reply vehemently opposing the contentions and the prayer of the applicants both on facts as also on the point of law and rules. During the course of the arguments, it has been brought to our notice that the issue at stake in the present Original Application has been fully and conclusively adjudicated upon, initially vide order dated 22.12.2022 in O.A. No. 2278/2021, and subsequently, on 24.05.2023 in O.A. No. 172/2021.

3. Accordingly, the present Original Application should also be disposed of against the background of these orders. While taking note of the strong opposition of learned counsel for the respondents, we have to acknowledge that the present OA bears striking similarity to the two earlier said OAs. We are reproducing the order dated 22.12.2022 passed in O.A. No. 2278/2021:-

“Learned counsel for the applicants stated as under:-

1.1 The applicants are officiating on the post of Assistant Public Health Inspectors (APHI)/Vaccinator on contract basis with the respondent. The respondent issued an advertisement in December, 2009 for filling up the post of AMI and APHI/Vaccinator for appointment on contract basis for a period of one year. The applicants applied for the said post and after undergoing selection process/interview, they were appointed on contract basis for a period of one year on a consolidated salary of Rs.10,300/- pm, vide order dated 17.09.2010. The contract kept on renewing from time to time with artificial breaks since their initial appointment.

1.2 It is stated that other similarly situated contractual employees of the respondent like Nursing and Paramedical staff, who were also continued as contractual employee and denied the benefit of regularization, were granted relief by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2399 . It is further submitted that the respondent, in compliance of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble High Court, issued an office order dated 01.09.2014 whereby staff nurses and paramedical staff engaged on contractual basis were extended the benefits and salary at par with regular employees.

1.3 It is further stated that similarly situated employees of the respondents had preferred OA No.3784/2015 seeking payment of salary in terms of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Kumar’s case (supra). The said OA was also allowed by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 05.04.2017. However, the respondents, instead of implementing the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, preferred South Delhi Municipal Corporation v Ved Prakash Nagar & Ors., WP(C) No.755/2018 . before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed with the following observations:-

“…while dismissing the present petition as meritless, we are constrained to express our displeasure with the petitioner/SDMC for approachi