Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. Muralidhar, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Kulbhushan Sehgal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1920 of 2016
Decided On : 22-01-2020
The continuous service of project employees for over 15 years necessitates their regularization when vacancies exist, supported by judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Sections 14 and 15 - Regularization of service - The petitioner's request for regularization in ICMR as a Scientist, after over 15 years of continuous service in various capacities, was supported by previous guidelines ensuring absorption of project employees after 15 years - The tribunal dismissed the petition citing temporary employment nature - The court held that the petitioner was entitled to regularization due to unfilled vacancies and continuous service. (Paras 11, 30, 31)
(B) Judicial Precedent - The court reiterated established principles from Dr. V.L. Chandra and Uma Devi regarding the absorption of long-serving project employees in public institutions - Continuity of service does not negate the right to permanency when vacancies exist. (Paras 15, 29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner joined ICMR in 1998 as a Statistical Assistant, progressively working up to Scientist-1 by 2010, with continuous service until termination in 2013. The ICMR response to the regularization request indicated a lack of available posts.
Findings of Court:
The court found that non-absorption was inconsistent in light of existing vacancies and continuous service for over 15 years, culminating in directions for regularization.
Issues: The key issues include the right of the petitioner for regularization given the continuous service and unfulfilled vacancies, conflicting views between the CAT and established precedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that policies regarding absorption and the absence of clarity in ICMR’s counter affidavits necessitated that the petitioner’s service be regularized, reinforcing the established judicial precedents.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging dismissal for regularization (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. rti application reveals basis for regularization (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. basis for dismissal by cat analyzed (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. context of employment at aiims and icmr (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. directions for regularization after service duration (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. supreme court directive for project employees (Para 23 , 24) |
| 7. absorption policy established for long-term project employees (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. consistent application of previous judgments (Para 28 , 29) |
| 9. court's order for regularization of petitioner (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
ORDER
S. Muralidhar, J. The Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition challenging an order dated 6th February, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`CAT'), dismissing his OA No. 659/2014. By the said OA he had sought regularisation in the post of a Scientist in the Indian Council for Medical Research (`ICMR')/Respondent No. 2 herein, commensurate with his educational qualifications and experience.
2. The background facts are that the Petitioner joined the ICMR as a Statistical Assistant on 1st June, 1998 on ad hoc basis. By a letter dated 30th June, 2003 he was appointed as Research Associate by the ICMR for a project titled "Intervention Program on Nutritional Anemia and other Haemoglobinopathies amongst Primitive Tribal population of India".
3. Three years later on 10th April, 2006, ICMR appointed the Petitioner as Senior Research Fellow. With effect from 11th January, 2010, he was appointed by ICMR as Research Scientist-1 (NM)/Scientist-B.
4. Consequent to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (`CPC'), which were implemented in the ICMR with effect from 1st September, 2009, the Petitioner was paid a consolidated salary of Rs.33,000/- with HRA with effect from 1st April, 2012. The case of the Petitioner is that in one capacity or the other, he has continuously worked with the ICMR for more than 15 years between 1998 and 2013.
5. At this stage, it must be mentioned that the Petitioner filed an application in the RTI Cell of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (`AIIMS')/Respondent No.3 herein. For obtaining the guidelines laid down by AIIMS for regularisation and absorption of project employees. In the reply given to the Petitioner, the names of 18 Scientists-1 and the other staff, initially appointed on projects and later regularised on completion of 15 years of service, were disclosed.
6. On 14th May, 2008, ICMR replied to the Petitioner in response to his letter dated 10th April, 2008 seeking regularisation according to his qualification that "at present, no post conforming to your qualification existed in the division of BMS (Basic Medical Science)". It was stated that his candidature would be considered "if any vacancy in the area of statistics suitable to your qualification is allowed to the area of BMS and he applied for the post". A similar reply was given seven months later on 22nd December, 2008.
7. Reference has also been made to a reply dated 13th February, 2013 to an RTI application filed on 28th January, 2013, by one V Kumar. It was disclosed by the ICMR that "in the headquarters of ICMR, there are 12 posts lying vacant as on date". In response to the query concerning the "total number of Scientists subject wise", it is stated therein that "no such information has been maintained".
8. An Office Memorandum (`OM') was issued by ICMR on 29th November, 2013 stating that with effect from 31st December, 2013, the Petitioner's services would not be required as the project on which he had been working had been completed.
9. Aggrieved by the above OM dated 29th November, 2013, the Petitioner filed OA No. 659/2014 in the CAT. Before the CAT, the Petitioner inter alia relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. V.L. Chandra v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (199
