An employee's long-term service establishes a right to regularization, and denying this based on outsourcing policy constitutes discrimination.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member(A))

The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:

“(i) to set aside the order bearing ref. No. 512A/12/2011/Vol.III (Electrician) d. 17.07.2019 passed by the 4th respondent in dispensing with his services w.e.f 20.07.2019 as malafide, arbitrary and contrary to the order dt. 16.05.2017 passed in O.A. No. 99 of 2013 and;

(ii) to set aside the order bearing Ref. No. C-18/11/6/2015/Med-VI(integ) dt. 26.09.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent in rejecting the request of the Applicant for regularisation on the ground that there is no vacancy for the post of Electrician and;

(iii) to direct the Respondent Corporation to regularise the services of the Applicant with effect from 05.10.2004 the date on which the Medical Superintendent made a recommendation to the 2nd respondent with all other consequential benefits including the monetary benefit and;

(iv) to count the service rendered on daily wages basis by the Applicant for the purpose of pension, terminal benefits and all other benefits and;

(v) to pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, award costs and thus render justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows: The applicant has been working in the Respondent Corporation since 11.07.1996 as an Electrician with deliberate breaks in service. On 01.04.1991, when the ESI hospital which was originally under the control of Govt. of Tamil Nadu, was taken over by the Respondent Corporation there were two vacancies of Electrician. When the respondents called for application from employment exchange, the applicant, after due selection process was appointed on daily wages basis with deliberate breaks in service and his services continued as such till 26.01.2013. While so, the Medical Superintendent of the Respondent Corporation, vide letter dated 05.10.2004 recommended to the 2^nd respondent for the regularisation of the applicant's services. When there was no response, the applicant filed OA 99/2013 for regularisation of his services as an Electrician and the said OA was allowed after taking into consideration that in the case of a similarly placed person Ramesh Chander before the Principal Bench of CAT, with a direction that the applicant may be considered for the post of Electrician on regular basis, in case if there is a regular vacancy exists. In response, the respondent initially passed an order dated 19.08.2017 stating that there is no possibility for regularisation as there was no vacancy but the said also was withdrawn on 30.08.2017. A contempt petition in CA No. 84/2018 has been filed by the applicant against the respondents wherein the respondents filed a status report enclosing a copy of the order dated 26.09.2018 rejecting the applicant's request for regularisation on the ground that the work of Electrician has been entrusted to an outside agency. When statutory notice was ordered by this Tribunal on 02.07.2019, the respondents passed an order dated 17.07.2019 terminating the services of the applicant on the alleged ground that the contractual appointment comes to an end on 20.07.2019. The applicant in support of his case has relied upon the judgment of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors dated 20.12.2024 reported in 2024 INSC 1034. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the afore said relief.

3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in th