Regularization of services must be effective from the date of initial appointment when qualifications and procedures are met, not from a later date.

ORDER

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

The applicants are seeking direction to the respondents to regularize their services w.e.f. their initial date of appointments from the year 1995-96 instead of 18.09.2014 as has been done by the respondents.

2. The applicants have sought for the following reliefs in this Original Application:

“8(i) That this Hon’ble Tribunal will be pleased to quash the orders dated 4^th Februrary 2016 and 30.10.2017, whereby the respondents regularize the services of the Applicants w.e.f 18^th September, 2014 in GDMO Sub-cadre of CHS instead of their initial appointments from the year 1995-96 as well directing them to fill the form of New Pension Scheme (NPS) without considering the facts that they were appointed much earlier from the introduction of NPS.

8(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant benefits of regularization to the Applicants from the date of their initial Appointments;

8(iii) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may also be pleased to direct the respondents to withdraw the letter dated 30.10.2017 whereby they have called upon the Applicants to fill up the form for New Pension Scheme;

8(iv) To grant any other relief’s may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8(v) Costs of the Petition be awarded to the Applicants.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed as ad-hoc Medical Officers between the period 1995-1997. Since the services of the applicants were not regularized for a considerable period, they preferred an Original Application No.893/2002 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2003 directing the respondents to grant similar benefits as has been granted to applicants in O.A. No.474/98. However, instead of regularising the services of the applicants, the respondents preferred a Writ Petition registered as W.P.(S) 6372/2004 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya and the order of this Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 23.02.2010. The applicants submit that even after the orders passed by this Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court, no steps were taken by the applicants for regularising the services of the applicants.

3.1 Subsequently, the UPSC issued a letter dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure A- 6) calling upon the applicants alongwith some other similarly placed doctors for personal talk. The applicants attended the personal talk and were declared entitled for regularisation by the UPSC. Thereafter, an order dated 04.02.2016 (Annexure A-8) was issued by the respondents, whereby the services of the applicants were regularised w.e.f.18.09.2014. Further, the applicants were issued with a letter dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure A-9) by which they were directed to fill the form for grant of New Pension Scheme (NPS).

3.2 The applicants further submit that the respondents are deducting the GPF from their salary thereby accepting that they do not fall within the category under the NPS. In the NPS, there is no provision for GPF rather Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) is deducted from the NPS subscribers account.

3.3 The applicants have, therefore, preferred representation to extend the benefit of regularisation from the date of their initial appointment and further coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). Since no decision was taken by the respondents, they have filed the instant Original Application seeking aforesaid relief(s).

4. The respondent No.2 has filed its reply, wherein it has been stated that in pursuance to the directions of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 23.02.2010, the proposal for regularisation of the service of 25 Medical Officers appointed on ad-hoc basis was taken up with UPSC and the UPSC found them fit for regular appointment. The UPSC vide their letter dated 18.09.2014 had advised that the 25 Medical Officers recommended for regular appointment should be appointed after the Appointing Authority satisfied itself about their integrity. Meanwhile,