Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme 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