The court ruled that employees similarly situated should be treated alike, emphasizing the right to regularization from the date of initial appointment and consequential benefits.

ORDER

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

“8.1. Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the orders dated 13.09.2017 and 20.04.2018 passed by the respondent No. 5 & respondent No.3.

8 (A-1)This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 4.2.2016 (Annexure No. A-4 of the original application in regard to the applicant and further fixed the respondents to issue as fresh order for regularization of services of applicants from their initial date of appointment i.e. 01.07.1995, 17.06.1995, 7.10.1995, 31.05.1995 and 07.01.1994 with all consequential benefits.

8 (B) Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased direct to the respondents give all service benefits to the applicants from the date of their appointment i.e. 01.07.1995, 17.06.1995, 7.10.1995, 31.05.1995 and 07.01.1994 respectively with all consequential benefits.

8 (C) Issue any other and further writ, order or directions; which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8 (D) Award the cost of the OA to the applicant”.

2. During the pendency of this OA, the original applicant No. 5 Dr. Mohd. Kaleem Siddiqui passed away and thereafter his widow and son have been substituted in his place by way of a substitution application.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed as Medical Officers on adhoc basis between 1994 and 1996 under the Labour Welfare Organization, Allahabad Region, and have been working continuously since their initial appointments without any break. The Ministry of Labour and Employment, after consultation with DoPT and the Department of Legal Affairs, had itself proposed to the UPSC that the services of doctors appointed during 1994–1997 on adhoc basis be regularized. The applicants’ services were ultimately regularized only with effect from 18.09.2014. They submitted representations seeking regularization from the dates of their initial appointment. When no decision was taken, they approached this Tribunal in OA No. 330/01225/2017 which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider their claim. The respondents later rejected the claim and denied them with the coverage under the Old Pension Scheme. However, a similarly situated doctor, Dr. N. Swarnalatha, whose name appears in the same regularization list, was granted regularization from her initial appointment by the Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 285/2016, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. The respondents have implemented that order and regularized her services from the initial date of appointment through Office Memorandum dated 03.04.2024. In another identical matter, the CAT Jabalpur Bench, in OA No. 200/1092/2017 (Dr. Neelam Malhotra & Others), directed for regularization of adhoc doctors from their initial appointment with all consequential benefits including Old Pension Scheme. The applicants in the present OA stand on the same footing as applicants of Hyderabad and Jabalpur Bench. They, therefore, seek similar treatment and also seek that their services be regularized from their initial dates of appointment with consequential benefits.

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 applicants, along with 25 other doctors, were appointed only on ad-hoc basis between 1994–1997 under the Ministry of Labour. Their appointments were not regular and did not follow the prescribed recru