Long-serving irregular appointees on sanctioned posts entitled to regularization after 10+ years service, per Jaggo v. UOI clarifying Uma Devi.

O R D E R

Per: HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):

1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) That the services of the applicant may be ordered to be regularized from the due date, that is, from which the vacancy was available with all benefits incidental thereof since the applicant has been working against the post/vacancy.

(ii) That the respondents may be ordered to pay minimum time scale of pay and other allowances to the applicant, of Group ‘D’ employees in his cadre since the applicant is discharging all those duties which are being discharged by the regular employees in his cadre and the respondents have violative the principles of equal pay for equal work and the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) That the record of the case may be summoned in the interest of justice.

(iv) That any other relief to which the applicant is found entitled to, may be granted in favour of the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

I. The applicant was engaged as Peon, on part time basis, by the respondents, through Employment Exchange, w.e.f. 07.12.1993 which is clear from Annexure A/1, after having been interviewed by a duly constituted selection committee while regular post was available and the applicant expected that his services would be regularized but again interview took place and the applicant was appointed on contract basis, vide Annexure A/2 on a consolidated salary but the said contractual appointment was converted into outsource basis, after the laspse of about three months, without giving any notice and without any opportunity of hearing to the applicant and the said action of the respondents amounts to termination of the contractual appointment of the applicant which could not be effected without giving one month's notice to the applicant. Moreover, no basis can be shown by the respondents for converting contractual appointment into outsource and the Labour Bureau itself has committed gross unfair labour practice which is supposed to prevent such practice by the other organizations/departments.

II. It is submitted by the applicant that the applicant expected that his services would be regularized but instead of regularizing services of the applicant, again said, he was kept on outsource basis and the said action of the respondents cannot be countenanced in law and services of the applicant could not be outsourced. There was no justification to keep the applicant firstly on part time basis, if the vacancy was available because the applicant was initially appointed by the respondents and part time appointment is always made in the exigency of service but the applicant was kept on part time basis for such a long time and then he was given contractual appointment and then outsourced. The respondents have violated the principle of equal pay for equal work because the regular employees, who are discharging the same duties, are receiving the salary more than Rs.30,000/- per month and the applicant is also discharge the same duties as are being discharged by the other similarly situated persons, working on regular basis, under the Labour Bureau and of equal value.

III. Further, it is submitted by the applicant that in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Vrs. Delhi Mineral Development Corporation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that services of daily wager are liable to be confirmed after three years but the respondents have not regularized services of