Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High 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