Long-term contractual employees do not have an automatic right to regularization; decisions must align with established regulations.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-

Since a common question of facts and law is involved in the present batch of OAs, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from O.A. No.2949/2024 and the same is taken as lead case in the present matter.

2. In the Original Application No.2949/2024, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):

“(a) To direct the respondents to extend the benefits of Judgment dt.2.6.2023 in OA No.407/21 followed Judgment dt.6.7.2023 in OA No.408/21 upheld vide Judgment dt.9.1.2024 in WP No.273/24 and implemented vide Orders dt.27.3.2024 to the applicants also being similarly placed;

(b) To direct the respondents to make payment of salary of the applicants for the month of April, 2024 onwards at the earliest with 12% interest from the day the payment became due till the payment is actually made;

(c) To direct the respondent not to disengage the services of the applicants till they are granted temporary status and consequent regularization of their services as per Judgment dt.2.6.2023 in the OA No.407/21 & Judgment dt.6.7.2023 in the OA No.408/21 upheld by the Hon'ble High Court Delhi vide Judgment dt.9.1.2024 in WP No.273/24.

(d) Pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(e) Allow cost in favour of the applicant.”

3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in an identical situation in O.A. No.407/2021 pronounced on 02.06.2023 in the case of Vandana Manchanda vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC), this Tribunal allowed the O.A.

4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. She states that the applicants have never raised any grievance nor sent any representation to the respondents regarding the prayers as sought in the present O.A. Therefore, the present matter is premature and liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit in O.A. No.2952/2024. She submits that the contentions of the applicants’ counsel are vociferously denied as false, misleading, baseless, mala fide, and entirely without any substance, as the applicants are contractual employees and are well aware of the said fact, hence claiming to be at par with regular employees is patently wrong. Hon'ble Apex Court held in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi & Ors. has held that those who have been employed temporarily or on a contractual basis have no fundamental right to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. The Hon'ble Division bench failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Tribunal has failed to consider that, as per the referred judgement, it has been held that a person who accepts an engagement that is either temporary or casual in nature is aware of the nature of his employment and also the remuneration to be paid to him. Such persons form a class by themselves and cannot claim parity with those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. However, anything contrary to what has been stated hereinabove is denied. She further submits that the matter regarding the extension of services of contractual employees, including that of the applicants, has been placed before the Board of Directors of the Respondent in the 304th Meeting held on 26.07.2024. The term of contractual appoi