SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1471

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, J, Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, A
Delhi State Contractual Employees’ Association – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
O.A./3837/2024 | M.A./4445/2024 | O.A./3841/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sanjoy Ghosh, Ms. Filza Moonis, Shri Mohit Garg, Ms. Monica Kapoor
For the Respondents: Shri Amit Yadav, Ms. Monika Bhargava

The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive policy for regularizing long-serving contractual employees in light of their continuous service and previous judicial directives.

Headnote:(A) Delhi High Court Judgment - Writ Petitions No. 12117/2023 and 12669/2023 - Central Administrative Tribunal - OAs 3837/2024 and 3841/2024 - Challenge to circulars and advertisement related to regularization of contractual employees - Applicants sought to declare the impugned orders as unjustified and demand regularization based on long service. (Paras 1.1, 2.1, 2.3)

(B) Employment Law - Regularization of Contractual Employees - The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive policy for regularization of long-serving contractual employees in light of previous judgments, highlighting the necessity of considering their long service. (Paras 7.6, 9)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, employed as paramedical staff on a contractual basis for over a decade, challenged the legality of recent circulars and advertisements for fresh recruitment, arguing that they should be regularized based on their lengthy service. (Paras 2.1, 2.5)

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal did not pass any order on the policy dated 20.11.2020 but directed the respondents to consider a comprehensive regularization policy within six months. (Paras 9, 9.1)

Issues: The key issues include whether the applicants are entitled to regularization based on their long service and the adequacy of the existing policy for their regularization. (Paras 7.1.1, 7.1.3)

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that while the policy for age relaxation was valid, it fell short of addressing the need for regularization of long-serving employees, which should be considered as per previous court directives. (Paras 7.6, 8.1)

Result: OAs disposed of with directions to reassess the regularization policy. No costs awarded.

Table of Content
1. factual background of contractual employees' claims. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of the issues and policies. (Para 7 , 8)
4. court's decision based on legal precedents. (Para 9)

ORDER

Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

1. The Delhi State Contractual Employees Association filed WP(C) No.12117/2023 and Cheriyan Podipaara Chacko & others filed WP(C) 11891/2023 and Ajay Kumar & Others filed WP (C) 12669/2023 before the Delhi High Court in 2023 seeking issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned circular dated /order dated 24.08.2023 issued by the Deputy Secretary, HR- Paramedical Branch and the Advertisement dated 31.07.2023 and OM dated 11.10.2020 as unjustified, arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

1.1 Vide order dated 6.09.2024 in WPC No. 12117/2023 and WPC No. 12669/2023 and CM Application No.49932/2023, the Hon’ble High Court passed the following order:

“Ordinarily, the Court would have directed the Petitioners to withdraw these petitions and approach the Tribunal afresh. However, considering that these writ petitions have been pending before this Court for some time, it would be unfair to direct the Petitioners to file fresh applications and therefore, these writ petitions are transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, where they shall be listed before the learned Registrar on 03.10.2024.”

The WPCs were converted into OA No.3837 of 2024. Subsequently, Ajay Kumar and others filed OA no. 3841/2024 seeking the following relief:

“A) issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned O.M. No. F.8/279/H&W/Nursing/2016/1463339 dated 11.10.2020 issued by Dy. Secretary (HR-Nursing) of Health & Family Welfare Department with the approval of the respondent no.2, the advertisement dated 31.07.2023 issued by the respondent no.4 and the impugned circular/order No. Fl (1036) HR- PARA/H&FW/2023/2969-3009 dated 24.08.2023 issued by the Deputy Secretary of HR-PARAMEDICAL Branch with approval of the respondent no.2, all being erroneous, unjustified, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in the eyes of law;

(B) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondents no. 1 and 2 to declare the petitioner employees as deemed "Regular Appointees/Employees" and consider them for confirmation on the respective posts as held by them since last more than 10 years, on the basis of their service record with all consequential benefits, thereto;

(C) pass any further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

1.2 As the issue in both the OAs are same and the applicants in both OAs have basically challenged the OM dated 11.10.2020 vide which the respondents are issuing advertisements for fresh recruitment, the OAs are decided together. With the agreement of the parties, OA No. 3837/2024 is taken as the lead case.

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 The present OA has been filed by the Delhi State Contractual Employees Association. The applicants were employed as para medical staff on contractual basis between 1998 and 2013 at various hospitals, pursuant to an advertisement notification issued by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). One such notification is at page 32 of the OA, issued by the Medical Superintendent, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi. The applicants, considering themselves eligible applied for the said position against regular vacancies. Having been appointed, they have continued to serve on a contractual basis to date. There are two sets of identically placed persons, who had approached this Tribunal in 2002 and 2003. Their cases were decided on 27.09.2002 and 14.11.2003, respectively. A review petition preferred by the respondents was dismissed. The respondents challenged the orders passed by the Tribunal bef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top