Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5504
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, Member (J), Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Shiji Varkey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00438/2025|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00440/2025|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00439/2025|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00430/2025|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00431/2025|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00432/2025|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00433/2025|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00434/2025|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00435/2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Pay Protection
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Office Memorandums - Delegated legislation under Article 309 - Cannot violate constitutional guarantees - Judicial discipline requires uniformity across tribunal benches - Persuasive value of coordinate High Court judgments binding on executive respondents - Dismissal of SLP leaving question open does not unsettle High Court ratio where finality attained. (Paras 10, 16)
(C) Service Law - Technical resignation - Entitles counting of past service linked to pay protection - Prior probation completion and selection through competitive process warrants protection to avoid undue disadvantage to experienced candidates. (Paras 2, 18)
Facts of the case:
Nursing Officers, after completing probation in prior government institution and submitting technical resignation, joined through open competitive examination - Representations for pay protection rejected vide orders dated 06.02.2025 relying on DOPT OMs denying benefit to examination-based selections - Earlier tribunal direction to decide representations led to impugned rejection.
Findings of Court:
Impugned orders set aside - Respondents directed to grant pay protection from due dates with consequential benefits, compliance within three months.
Issues: Validity of DOPT OMs distinguishing pay protection based on mode of selection (interview vs. open competitive examination); applicability to technical resignations; constitutionality under Articles 14 and 16.
Ratio Decidendi: Classification denying pay protection to open competitive examinees lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of attracting talent - Arbitrary, violative of equality in public employment - FR 22(I)(a)(1) directly applicable post-promotion/appointment satisfying eligibility.
Result: Original Applications allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prithveesh M.K
For the Respondents: Siddaveer Chakki
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issues in clubbed oas; factual background of applicants' service and impugned orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicants argue oms discriminatory; rely on delhi hc judgments for pay protection. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents defend oms as valid policy; distinction between interview and exam-based selection justified. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. core issue: validity of impugned orders denying pay protection under dopt oms. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. delhi hc judgments (sanjog kapoor, rakesh semalty) declare om 1998 arbitrary. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. distinction between interview and exam selection violates articles 14 & 16. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. precedents confirm artificial classification invalid; pay protection must be granted. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. impugned orders set aside; direct pay protection with consequential benefits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
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 4th 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 2nd 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 2nd 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
