Long-serving contractual employees on sanctioned posts entitled to regularization consideration despite procedural informalities.

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:

“(b) That the action of the respondents outsourcing the services of the applicants who have been working since 2005 and 2000 directly under respondent no.3 be quashed and set aside being contrary to the law settled by Hon’ble Court in case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported as 2017 (1) SCT 197 and Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported as 2007 (13) SCC 292.

(c) That Annexure A/1 dated 01.03.2023, 22.08.2023 and 11.09.2023 colly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice.

(d) That direction be issued to the respondents to allow the applicants to work as direct employees of respondent no.3 as Video Assistant and regularize their services as they have worked for more than 10 years in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari reported as 2010 (3) SCT 678 and OM dated 07.10.2020 issued by Government of India.

(e) Cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicants.”

Since both the applicants vide MA No.2067/2023 filed under Rule 4 (5) (a) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking permission to join together and file single OA jointly, the same was allowed and the applicants were allowed to file OA jointly.

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

I. The applicant no.1 joined service with respondent no.3 as Video Assistant on 17.10.2005 and applicant no.2 joined in the year 2000 after positive mode of selection on the basis of open advertisement issued by respondent no.3 and are continuing on the same post till date as is evident from Experience Certificate dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure A/2).

II. The applicants have been working on the said post on full time basis till date and there are regular need of work which the applicants are performing till date. Keeping in view the same, the applicants were booked on Assignment Basis for full shift on different dates (Annexure A/3) collectively. Various categories in DDK are engaged on the basis of workload for a period of 120 days in a year. The applicants were directly engaged by respondent no.3 and they were no back door entries. The applicants have been working to entire satisfaction and nothing adverse has ever been conveyed to the applicants till date and the applicants have even worked for more than 120 days in a year and also done double shifts during peak hours.

III It is submitted by the applicants that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs R.N. Hegde & ors. reported as 1998 (8) SCC 731 directed DDK Hyderabad to consider the cases of Production Assistants/ Floor Assistant for regularization as per Scheme dated 09.06.1992 (Annexure A/4) as modified vide O.M. dated 17.03.1994 (Annexure A/5) and dated 05.07.1994 (Annexure A/6). The Scheme dated 09.06.1992 was framed by DDK on directions being issued by Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.894 of 1990 vide its order dated 08.02.1991 directing to formulate and implement a Scheme for regularization of Casual Artist, who had done 120 days of casual service in a year. Similar directions were issued by Principal Bench in OA No.563 of 1986 vide its order dated 14.02.1992 in case titled Anil Kumar Mathur vs Union of India. The outsiders are engaged on assignment basis in terms of Policy dated 13.05.1985 for 10 days in a month which makes 120 days of working in a year. The applicants in the present case were also made to work in the same manner