High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana 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

Similar News