Sale Deed Invalid After Revocation of Power of Attorney: Madras High Court Supreme Court Declares WhatsApp Service of Notices Invalid Under Notices under Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS Doctrine of Natural Justice Cannot Be Invoked to Evade Regulatory Compliance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition Against Consumer Forum Order Presence of Metallic Foreign Bodies in X-ray Corroborates Firearm Injury" – Patna High Court School Records Alone Insufficient to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Without Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Double Payment for the Same Claim Is Against Public Policy: Karnatka High Court Remits Case to Commercial Court Land Acquisition | Once the Government Funds an Acquisition, Public Purpose Cannot Be Disputed: Bombay High Court When a Man Acts in the Heat of the Moment, Law Must Recognize the Loss of Self-Control: KERALA HIGH COURT Absence of Bank Seal on Cheque Return Memo Not a Ground for Acquittal: Calcutta High Court Convicts Accused in Cheque Bounce Case Confiscation is Not Automatic: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Release of Seized Vehicle in NDPS Case False Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Can Constitute Mental Cruelty Justifying Divorce: Gujarat High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted in Cases of Commercial Drug Trafficking: Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Alleged International Drug Cartel Member Magistrate Can Rely on Victim’s Section 164 Statement Over Section 161 Statement: Allahabad High Court Upholds Closure Report in Kidnapping and Rape Case State Liable for Electrocution Injury to Minor Due to Uncovered High-Voltage Wire: J&K and Ladakh High Court Unexplained Delay of 586 Days in Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned as a Matter of Right: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka High Court’s Order A Purchaser During Litigation Cannot Claim Superior Rights Over a Decree-Holder: Supreme Court Upholds Doctrine of Lis Pendens Violation of Natural Justice at the Initial Stage Cannot Be Cured at the Appellate Stage: Supreme Court Denial of Fair Hearing Strikes at the Very Core of Justice: Supreme Court Upholds Selection of Shiksha Karmis Merit Alone Must Prevail: Supreme Court Strikes Down Residence-Based Quota in PG Medical Courses Selective Prosecution and Missing Witnesses: Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based on Incomplete Evidence Conviction Cannot Rest on Unreliable Eyewitnesses and Mere Recovery of Weapon: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Need for Legal Recognition of Live-in Relationships:  Rajasthan High Court Calls for Mandatory Registration Judicial Discipline Demands Uniformity: Rajasthan High Court Refers Protection of Married Persons in Live-in Relationships to Special Bench

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similar News