Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12270

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SURESH KUMAR BATRA, J, RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, A
Rajesh Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Shiv Kumar, Sudesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi – Respondent
Original Application No.063/1220/2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rishav Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC

Employees engaged through contractors cannot be arbitrarily denied rights and benefits if recognized as direct employees by prior judicial decisions.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service termination - Original Application filed challenging oral termination of employees as illegal and seeking reinstatement and regularization. Court finds that decisions previously acknowledge the applicants as direct employees of the department. Reinstatement ordered in line with past rulings that established the necessity for fair employment practices and regularization where applicable. (Paras 8, 12, 17, 18)

(B) Employment Law - Equal pay for equal work - Ruling declared that applicants, being similarly situated employees, are entitled to benefits similar to those granted to other employees under established judicial pronouncements. (Paras 10, 11, 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were engaged as Group-D employees and faced illegal oral termination of their services after the Supreme Court's directives for regularization. Their claims for reinstatement and wage adjustments were challenged based on their employment status.

Findings of Court:
Court established that the respondents cannot deny benefits to similarly situated employees and reiterated the unlawful basis of prior rejections for regularization despite longstanding service.

Issues: The primary issues addressed included the legality of termination and denial of regularization based on contractors, emphasizing the applicants' status as employees of the department.

Ratio Decidendi: Reinstatement and benefits are mandated based on the principle of fair labor practices, especially for long-serving employees recognized by previous judicial rulings.

Result: The applications were allowed, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the applicants forthwith without back pay for non-working periods.

Table of Content
1. application under administrative tribunal for wrongful termination. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court observes prior ruling on employee recognition. (Para 3 , 4 , 10)
3. claims for regularization rejected based on contractor argument. (Para 5 , 11)
4. reinstatement and regularization ordered due to unlawful termination. (Para 15 , 18)

ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following relief:-

i) That order dated 17.06.2013 (Annexure A-1) be quashed and set aside.

ii) The oral termination of the applicants, after allowing the Writ Petition, on 02.12.2009 be declared as illegal and arbitrary.

iii) The respondents be directed to reinstate the applicants into service with all consequential benefits.

iv) That it be declared that the applicants are entitled to wages in accordance with DOPT O.Μ. dated 07.06.1988 at the rate of 1/30th of minimum of the pay scale of Group-D employees plus dearness allowance w.e.f. filing of original application in 2004 along with arrears etc.

v) A direction be issued to the respondents to decide the pending legal notice dated 27.09.2015 (Annexure A-9) of the applicants in the interest of justice.

vi) The respondents be directed regularize the services the applicants in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi from the dates when the applicants have completed 10 years of service.

2. The summarized facts of the case are that the applicants were initially engaged as Frash/Sweeper by the respondent department directly under their control and they were also paid their wages directly by the respondent. They filed O.A. No.595/PB/2004 seeking benefit of order dated 14.08.2002 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Kiran Pal & Others Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 800/CH/2001), affirmed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 7983-CAT-2003 on 23.05.2003. The aforesaid O.A. filed by the applicants was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.10.2005 (Annexure A-4) in terms of Kiran Pal‟s case. The respondents approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and filed CWP which was allowed in favour of on the respondents department vide order dated 02.12.2009. The applicants along with others filed SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and challenged the order dated 02.12.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court (Annexure A-5) and the same were disposed of the in favour of the applicants on 19.11.2012 (Annexure A-6). In pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 17.06.2013 (Annexure A-1) vide which the claim of applicants for regularization has been rejected by the respondents.

3. The applicants further submitted that the common impugned order dated 17.06.2013 was challenged by one Shri Jasbir Singh before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No.931/PB/2013 with a prayer that he be held entitled benefit of DOPT the order dated 7.06.1988 as granted to his juniors. The aforesaid O.A. was allowed by this Tribunal vide dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure A-8) while quashing the impugned order dated 17.06.2013 and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the applicant therein for regularization in view of the observations made in the dated 10.09.2014. The respondents were further directed to consider the case of the applicant therein for grant of the benefit of DOPT OM dated 07.06.1988, if junior to him has been granted the same. The aforesaid order was implemented by the respondents vide office order dated 14.08.2015 and the applicant therein was granted the benefit of OM dated 07.06.1988 i.e. the minimum of pay scale of the Group-D post. So far as the claim of the applicant for regularization, the same was rejected by the respondents by passing a same speaking order. A number of other OAs were filed and the same were disposed of in term

Click Here to Read the rest of this document