When Police Search Both The Bag And The Body, Section 50 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed: Supreme Court Settles The Boundaries Of A Critical Safeguard Police Cannot Offer A Third Option During NDPS Search: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In 11 Kg Charas Case, Holds Section 50 Violation Vitiates Entire Trial Supreme Court Holds Employer Group Insurance Has No Connection With Accidental Death, Cannot Be Set Off Against Motor Accident Compensation Graduating Shouldn't Be A Punishment: Supreme Court Restores Rights Of Anganwadi Workers Denied Supervisor Posts For Being Over-Qualified Trustee Who Diverts Sale Proceeds of Charitable Trust Is an 'Agent' Under Section 409 IPC, Not Exempt From Criminal Breach of Trust: Bombay High Court AFGIS Is 'State' Under Article 12: Supreme Court Reverses Delhi High Court, Restores Writ Petitions of Air Force Insurance Society Employees Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Directions Against Repeated Summoning of Child Victims, Insistence on Presence During Bail Hearings In POCSO 'Accidental Injury' in Hospital Records, All Eye-Witnesses Hostile: Gujarat High Court Acquits Men Convicted for Culpable Homicide After 35 Years Medical Condition Alone Cannot Dilute the Statutory Embargo Under Section 37 NDPS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Pre-emption Cannot Wait for Registration When Possession Has Already Changed Hands: Punjab & Haryana High Court Strikes Down Time-Barred Claim Listing a Case for Evidence Is Not Commencement of Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Insurance Dispute Forgery Accused Cannot Be Declared 'Proclaimed Offender': Punjab and Haryana High Court Draws Critical Distinction Between 'Proclaimed Person' and 'Proclaimed Offender' A Two-Line Ex Parte Judgment Is No Judgment In The Eye Of Law: Madras High Court Declares Decree Inexecutable What Was Not Claimed Then Cannot Be Claimed Now: Calcutta High Court Applies Constructive Res Judicata to Bar Second Partition Suit Unregistered Family Settlement Creates No Rights in Immovable Property: Delhi High Court Rejects Brother's Ownership Claim Police Must Protect Lawful Possession When Civil Court Decree Is Defied: Kerala High Court Upholds Purchase Certificate Holder’s Rights Over Alleged Temple Claim One Mark Short, No Right to Appointment: Patna High Court Dismisses Engineer's Claim to Vacancies Left by Non-Joining Candidates Bombay High Court Binds MCA to Arbitration as "Veritable Party" in T20 League Dispute Silence in the Witness Box Can Sink Your Case: ‘Non-Examination Leads to Presumption Against Party’ — Andhra Pradesh High Court Sale Deed Holder With Registered Title Prevails Over Claimant Under Mere Agreement To Sell: Karnataka High Court Candidate With 'Third Child' Disqualification Cannot Escape Consequence By Avoiding Cross-Examination: Supreme Court

Delhi CAT Orders Regularization of Long-Serving Adhoc Stenographers, Terms Government Action ‘Arbitrary and Violative’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Central Administrative Tribunal directs Union of India to regularize services of Stenographer Grade-D employees, condemns administrative objections as undermining judicial independence.

In a significant ruling, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has ordered the regularization of Stenographer Grade-D employees who have been serving on an adhoc basis for over eleven years. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, found the alteration of the terms of their service to a contractual basis with reduced remuneration as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The applicants, appointed as Stenographer Grade-D on an adhoc basis at the CAT, contested the alteration of their service terms which transitioned their appointments to a contractual basis with reduced pay. Initially appointed through a fair selection process facilitated by the employment exchange in 2012, they continued their service uninterruptedly, albeit with artificial breaks, until a new order in February 2023 changed their employment terms, prompting them to seek judicial relief.

Credibility of Initial Appointment and Service: The Tribunal emphasized the legitimacy of the initial appointments made with the approval of the Chairman of CAT, highlighting that these appointments were made through an open and transparent process. “The applicant was appointed through a fair selection process and has continuously served for over eleven years without any adverse performance remarks,” noted the bench.

Impact of Administrative Objections: The court criticized the frequent administrative objections raised by the PAO of CAT, which led to the alteration of the terms of service. “Does the PAO enjoy an authority superior to the Hon’ble Chairman, CAT and could his objection be a sufficient ground to alter the terms and conditions to the disadvantage of the applicant after more than 11 long years of service?” the bench questioned, stressing the absurdity and contemptuous nature of such administrative objections.

Judicial Independence and Functional Autonomy: The judgment extensively discussed the principles of judicial independence and the functional autonomy of the Tribunal. Citing precedents like Union of India vs. R. Gandhi and Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Limited, the bench asserted that the Tribunal must not function under the control of the executive in matters of day-to-day administration and financial independence. “Such a situation strikes at the foundation of the rule of law and severely compromises judicial independence,” the court remarked.

The Tribunal’s decision was heavily guided by principles of equality and non-discrimination. The court underscored that similar employees had been regularized in the past, and there was no justification to treat the current applicants differently. “We cannot, under any circumstances, allow a situation where the order/decision, even though administrative, of the Chairman, CAT who ‘is or has been a judge of a High Court’ to be overruled by an official of the Government,” stated the bench.

Justice Tarun Shridhar observed, “The engagement of the applicant as Stenographer Grade-D on adhoc/contract basis with intermittent break is arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” Further, the judgment highlighted, “The Tribunal should not function as another department under the control of the executive, thereby ensuring the independence and credibility of the judicial process.”

The CAT’s ruling to regularize the applicants from the date of their initial engagement sets a crucial precedent in protecting the rights of adhoc employees in public employment. By addressing the undue administrative influence and reaffirming judicial independence, this landmark decision reinforces the legal framework for fair employment practices within the judiciary.

Date of Decision: April 26, 2024

Stenographer Grade-D (Adhoc Basis) vs. Union of India and Central Administrative Tribunal

Latest Legal News