Regularization of service for temporary staff requires consideration of long service and past precedents, while due process and timely application are essential.

ORDER

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-

“8.1. That the direction be issued to respondents authorities to consider the regularization of applicant from the date of his initial appointment, otherwise he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

8.2. That any other and further order as it deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

8.3 Award cost of petition to the applicant”.

2. During the pendency of this OA, the original applicant Pyare Mohan Srivastava passed away and thereafter his widow, sons and daughters have been substituted in his place by way of a substitution application.

3. The brief facts of the case are that original applicant was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist under an ICMR project and joined the respondent-department on 23.02.1981. Though the appointment was described as temporary, his services were never discontinued and the project itself has been running continuously since the beginning. The original applicant has, therefore, worked for more than 36 years under the direct control and supervision of respondents No. 5 and 6. Various circulars issued by the respondents clearly show that the staff working under the ICMR Human Reproduction Research Centre were treated at par with employees of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. Circulars dated 07.07.1981, 21.12.1982, and the pay-revision circular dated 30.12.1987 make it evident that the applicant was given allowances, increments, revised pay scales, and promotional pay scales in the same manner as permanent employees. This reflects that the project was of a permanent nature, and the original applicant’s service was treated as continuous and regular for all practical purposes. When similarly situated employees namely Dr. Rita Shukla and Ram Kripal Yadav) were denied regularization, she approached the Tribunal. In OA No. 54/2011 (Dr. Rita Shukla Vs. Union of India and others) and OA No. 528/2017 (Ram Kripal Yadav Vs. Union of India and others), this Tribunal directed the authorities to consider their cases for regularization, relying on the judgment of the Madras Bench in OA No. 1332/2000. Contempt proceedings are also pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court for non-compliance of those directions. Despite these clear precedents and despite being identically placed, the representation of the original applicant requesting regularization has not been decided by the respondents. Since the original applicant has served continuously for more than three decades, has been given revised pay scales and service benefits like permanent employees and is similarly situated to other employees whose cases have already been allowed by the Tribunal, he is fully entitled to the same benefit. Therefore, the present OA deserves to be allowed in terms of the orders passed in OA No. 528/2017, OA No. 54/2011, OA No. 966/2016 and OA No. 1332/2000.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the Original Application. They have stated in the counter affidavit that the Human Reproductive Research Centres (HRRC) are research units identified by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), but these centres are fully operated and managed by the respective State Government hospitals. The ICMR only provides financial assistance and does not recruit, appoint, or manage staff working in thes