Distinction in pay protection between interview and open competitive examination selections is arbitrary, lacking intelligible differentia, violating Articles 14 and 16; employees from government service via technical resignation entitled to protection.

O R D E R

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

1.Since common and akin issues are involved, these matters are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, OA No. 438/2025 is taken as the lead case. The reliefs sought in these OAs are common and the same reads thus:

“(I) Call for records from the respondents;

(II) Issue a writ or order quashing the impugned order dated 06.02.2025, bearing No. 53/A/27/20/3/2023/RO/Med Admn, issued by the 4^th respondent (Annexure A8) and consequently direct the respondents to grant benefit of pay protection and counting of past service to the applicant, forthwith along with all consequential benefits, from the due date, to meet the ends of justice.

(III) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit including the costs of this proceeding, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Facts in brief are that the applicant in OA No. 438/2025 possessing B.Sc. in Nursing degree was appointed in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh as Sister Grade II vide letter dated 13.06.2015, upon which she joined duty on 13.07.2015. Vide communication dated 01.05.2019, the applicant's probation came to be declared. Pursuant to the Recruitment Notification issued by the 2^nd respondent Corporation dated 21.12.2018, the applicant applied to the post of Staff Nurse. She was selected and given an offer of appointment on 08.08.2019. Upon receiving the said offer, the applicant tendered her technical resignation from PGIMER, Chandigarh, which came to be accepted on 25.11.2019. The applicant joined duty in the 2^nd respondent Corporation on 03.12.2019 in the post of Nursing Officer and is working till date. The benefit of pay protection was sought by the applicant by submitting the representation but of no avail, as such, she was constrained to approach this Tribunal, Principal Bench, in OA No. 1870/2023 along with other similarly situated persons, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2023 directing the competent authority amongst the respondents therein to decide the pending representations in accordance with the rules and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Things standing thus, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 which stated that the applicant is not entitled to pay protection for the reason that she was appointed to the post of Nursing Officer, erstwhile Staff Nurse, vide direct recruitment through open competitive examination, and as such, benefits cannot be extended to such appointments as per office memorandum dated 07.08.1989 and 10.07.1998. Such orders were issued to the other applicants as well. Being aggrieved, the applicants have preferred the present OAs.

3. Learned counsel Shri Prithveesh M.K. representing the applicants argued that the impugned orders dated 06.02.2025 has been issued without any legal basis. Referring to two Office Memorandums i.e., (i) OM dated 10.07.1998 and (ii) OM dated 13.08.2020, learned counsel submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sanjog Kapoor vs. Union of India