Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4688
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Praveen Kumar Yadav, Pankaj Kumar Trivedi, Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Lokesh Sharma, Pravesh Kumar Joshi, Sardar Singh Rundla, Raajeeta Singh – Appellant
Versus
National Capital Territory of Delhi, Medical Superintendent Health Center-cum-Maternity Hospital – Respondent
O.A./410/2020 | M.A./518/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Kamlakshi S. Chauhan, Shri P.K. Mishra
For the Respondents: Shri Pradeep Kumar
Judicial precedents do not equate contractual employment benefits to those of regular employees, emphasizing legitimate distinctions in entitlement under statutory regulations.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Contractual Employees - Entitlement to service benefits - Applicants sought to have all kinds of leaves including study leave and CCL granted considering previous High Court judgments - High Court judgments emphasized rights of contractual employees to wages and certain benefits, but did not extend all benefits typical for regular employees - The court found that the appeal lacked merit as statutory rules govern leave allowance and entitlement distinguished between contractual and regular employees. (Paras 1, 5.1, 6.1)
(B) Judicial Precedents - Applicability and interpretation of earlier judgments in relation to employees' entitlements, specifically regarding study leave and child care leave - The court highlighted that extension of some benefits to contractual employees does not translate to full parity with regular staff and identified that the intention was to ensure fair treatment rather than parity. (Paras 5.6, 5.11)
Facts of the case:
The 9 applicants are staff nurses working contractually since 2007-2008, seeking entitlement to leaves and benefits akin to regular employees based on prior court decisions extending some benefits to contract workers afforded by the Delhi High Court.
Findings of Court:
The present OA lacks merit as statutory rules apply distinguishing contractual employees from regular employees. The entitlement to benefits such as study leave and CCL were not supported under current regulations.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether contractual employees are entitled to benefits including tuition reimbursement and varied leave types on par with regular employees, in light of previous High Court judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal reiterated that judicial precedents do not entail equal treatment in all respects for contractual versus permanent employees, particularly in the realm of statutory leave entitlements, emphasizing the legitimate classification and distinctions made under the Constitution. (Paras 5.7, 5.11)
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants are staff nurses seeking leave benefits. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicants argue for benefits based on past judgments. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. core issue relates to contractual rights versus regular entitlements. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
“In view of the above, it is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant all kinds of leaves (EL, CL, ML, CCL, Maternity and Paternity Leaves etc.) and medical benefits to the applicants including medical health card and tuition fees in view of the findings set out by the Hon'ble High Court in their various decisions.”
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicants who are 9 in number, are working as contractual employees (Semi Skilled) with the respondents. They are contractual Staff Nurse working in various hospitals/institutions since 2007-2008 without any break. Though the respondents have granted the applicants various leaves, however, they have not granted Study Leave and Child Care Leave and they have also not granted tuition fees, as it is admissible to the regular employees.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants while relying on the grounds mentioned in the OA, refers to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6798/2002 titled Sonia Gandhi & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. decided on 6.11.2013. The operative para of the same is reproduced as under:-
“16. We take note of the decision dated May 22, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.8476/2009 as also the decision dated March 20, 2013 in W.P.(C) No.4641/2012 and direct that not only the writ petitioners in the above two writ petitions but additionally all contract appointed employees shall be paid wages by the Government of NCT of Delhi as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.8476/2009 and shall be entitled to leave of all kind including maternity and sick leave in terms of the decision in W.P. (C) No.4641/2012.”
3.1 Learned counsel for applicants further submits that when the High Court has stated that the contractual employees will be granted all kind of leaves at par with the regular employees this automatically extends to Child Care Leave (CCL) and Study Leave.
3.2 At this stage, learned counsel for applicants states that she is not pressing for leave encashment as the applicant is still in service. However, she states that applying the principle of equity as it has already been held by the Hon’ble High Court in Sonia Gandhi (supra) case, the applicants are entitled for other benefits like CCL and Study Leave and tuition fee for their children.
3.3 Learned counsel for applicants further referred to circular dated 19.03.2021, (Annexure R-3) annexed to the counter reply wherein the respondents have granted various kind of leaves to all contractual employees in pursuance with the Sonia Gandhi (supra) judgment. However, they have excluded the present applicants stating that (in clause 4) “contractual employees are not entitled for any Leave encashment, Child Care Leave, Study Leave and Tuition fees.”
4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes grant of reliefs in the present OA and submits that the applicants are contractual employees with the respondents who are getting the benefits of equal wage as the regular employees except grant of increment, LTC, Tuition Fees, Leave Encashment, Child Care Leave and Study Leave. He refers to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sonia Gandhi (Supra) case and submits that the applicants have been granted all permissible leaves and they have not been granted CCL and Study Leave and Tuition Fee as these are granted only to regular employees. Under the garb of CCL, the applicants are trying to extend their contractual employment beyond the stipulated period as would be men
