Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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