138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

CAT Allahabad Directs ICMR to Regularize Services: Long-serving Temporary Employees Deserve Fair Treatment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench mandates service regularization and addresses compassionate appointment requests.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Allahabad Bench has delivered a significant ruling, ordering the regularization of services for employees of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and addressing issues of compassionate appointment. The judgment, given by a bench comprising Justice Om Prakash VII and Member Mohan Pyare, resolves the disputes in two original applications (OAs) related to service regularization, medical benefits, and compassionate appointments.

The two original applications, OA No. 330/00354 of 2021 and OA No. 330/00418 of 2021, were filed by Pradeep Kumar and Mridula Singh, respectively. Pradeep Kumar, a driver at the Human Right Productive Research Centre (HRRC) under ICMR, sought regularization of his service dating back to his appointment in 1987, along with medical benefits. Mridula Singh and her daughter Shivika Singh sought pension and compassionate appointment benefits following the death of Brijesh Kumar Singh, who had served as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under ICMR since 1987.

The Tribunal observed that the applicants’ situations were similar to those in previous cases where regularization was granted. The bench emphasized that the applicants had been continuously employed and were entitled to regularization. Justice Om Prakash VII noted, "The facts are similar and identical, and applicants in both the OAs are also entitled to regularization of their services."

The judgment referenced several precedent cases, including the case of Smt. Shobha Rani Srivastava, where the Tribunal had directed the regularization of services for similarly placed employees. The bench highlighted that the ICMR had a history of granting regularization in compliance with earlier Tribunal and High Court orders, which should apply to the present applicants as well.

The Tribunal’s decision was grounded in principles of equality and fairness. It underscored that temporary employees serving for extended periods under schemes such as the HRRC are entitled to regularization, as affirmed in previous judgments by the Supreme Court and various High Courts. The bench reiterated that regularizing long-serving temporary employees aligns with the legal framework established to prevent discrimination and ensure fair treatment in public employment

Justice Om Prakash VII stated, "Applicants’ cases are squarely covered with the decision of OA No. 966 of 2016. Thus, both OAs are allowed in terms of judgment and order passed in OA No. 966 of 2016." The bench further instructed that "respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization in the light of the observation made in the aforesaid judgment within a period of four months from today and grant them all monetary benefits as per their entitlements."

The CAT's ruling mandates the ICMR to regularize the services of Pradeep Kumar and provide the due benefits to Mridula Singh and Shivika Singh. This decision reinforces the legal protections for long-serving temporary employees and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. The judgment highlights the Tribunal's commitment to upholding the rights of employees in public sector institutions, ensuring that their prolonged service is recognized and rewarded appropriately.

Date of Decision: 12th July 2024

Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Legal News