Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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