Misuse of Temporary Contracts is Exploitative; Regularize Long-Serving Staff, CAT Directs AIIMS, Citing Supreme Court's 'Jaggo' Ruling - 2025-07-05

CAT Directs AIIMS to Re-Examine Regularization for 107 Contractual Staff, Citing Supreme Court's Stance Against Exploitative Temporary Employment

New Delhi: In a significant ruling addressing the precarity of contractual employment, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to re-examine the cases of 107 project-based employees for permanent absorption. The Tribunal, while ordering that 83 currently serving applicants not be disengaged, heavily relied on recent Supreme Court judgments that decry the misuse of temporary contracts and advocate for the regularization of long-serving staff.

---

Case Background: A Plea for Job Security

The case, titled Dr. Vishwa Deepak Bamola & 106 Ors. vs. AIIMS & Anr. , was brought before the Principal Bench of the CAT in New Delhi. The applicants, a diverse group of 107 individuals including scientists, research officers, assistants, and attendants, have been engaged by AIIMS on a contractual basis for varying durations under different research projects and schemes.

Their plea sought regularization of their services, arguing they were "similarly situated" contractual workers entitled to absorption as per AIIMS' own guidelines. Of the 107 applicants, 83 were still employed, while 24 had been terminated by the institution.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Counsel: The applicants argued that AIIMS’s rejection of their regularization requests was arbitrary. They pointed to an order dated January 9, 2025, concerning four of the applicants, which they described as a "cryptic reproduction of parameters" that failed to assess the individual merits and suitability of each employee. They contended that treating all project employees alike for regularization was a matter of non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Respondents' Counsel (AIIMS): AIIMS countered that the applicants were not similarly placed due to their varied roles, qualifications, and project affiliations. The institution's Governing Body had decided against direct absorption on several grounds: - It would violate established recruitment rules requiring open competition. - It would compromise merit-based selection and the principle of equity. - It would contravene constitutional provisions for reservation for SC, ST, and OBC categories.

AIIMS maintained that vacant posts must be filled through established, transparent recruitment processes.

Tribunal's Reliance on Landmark Precedents

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap , Member (A), observed that despite the diverse roles, all applicants were contractual workers engaged by AIIMS. The Tribunal found merit in the applicants' plea by drawing heavily on a landmark Supreme Court judgment.

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024): The Tribunal extensively quoted the Supreme Court's decision in Jaggo , which established that employees who have rendered continuous service for over ten years in roles necessary for an institution's functioning should be regularized. The CAT highlighted the Supreme Court's critique of the "pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts," which it equated to exploitative practices seen in the gig economy. The judgment noted:

"It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation... Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks."

The Tribunal also noted the Supreme Court's caution against the misapplication of the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi judgment, which was intended to stop illegal backdoor appointments, not to penalize long-serving employees in "irregular" but not "illegal" appointments.

Final Decision and Directions

Finding that AIIMS's previous rejection lacked a case-by-case assessment of suitability, the Tribunal disposed of the application with a series of directives:

No Disengagement: AIIMS is directed not to disengage the 83 applicants who are currently in service.

Case-by-Case Examination: The respondents must examine the case of each of the 107 applicants on its individual merits for absorption within twelve weeks.

Harmonious Balance: This examination must be conducted in view of AIIMS’s own guidelines (dated 26.09.2008) and the principles laid down by its Governing Body, creating a "harmonious balance" while giving due weightage to the experience gained by the employees.

Communicate Decision: The final decision for each applicant must be communicated within two weeks after the twelve-week examination period.

The Tribunal also instructed AIIMS to clarify its policy on differentiating between "research staff" and "non-research staff" working in projects, as the applicants contended that all project workers arecategorized as research staff for the purpose of regularization.