Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Meenakshi Bhatia vs Health And Family Welfare on 12 May, 2026
1
Item No. 27 (C-2)
O.A. No. 1293/2025
and
O.A. No. 1339/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1293/2025
M.A. No. 2367/2025
and
O.A. No. 1339/2025
M.A. No. 3894/2024
M.A. No. 3470/2025
This the 12th day of May, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri B. Anand, Member (A)
O.A. No. 1293/2025
Meenakshi Bhatia
Assistant Administrative Officer
D/o Late. Sh. Dalip Bhatia
Age 36 years,
R/o H . No.A-570, Pandav Nagar,
Narayana, Central Delhi-110008
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Prashant Kumar Mittal, Mr. Nadeem Hussain,
Mr. Parv Aggarwal)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
North Block, New Delhi
2. Additional Medical Superintendant,
Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital
Department of Neonatology Bangla Sahib Marg,
New Delhi - 110001
3. Medical Superintendant,
Lady Hardinge Medical College & Smt. S.K. Hospital
Cannought Place, Panchkuian Road
DEEKSHA 2026.05.22
DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30'
2
Item No. 27 (C-2)
O.A. No. 1293/2025
and
O.A. No. 1339/2025
Opposite Shivaji Stadium ,
New Delhi - 110001
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
O.A. No. 1339/2025
Ms. Neha Saini
D/o - Sh. Parmod Kumar Saini
R/o - 5407, Laddu Ghati, Paharganj
Swami Ram Tirath Nagar
Delhi - 110055
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Man Mohan Kumar and Mr. JS Matta)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Its Secretary
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Nirman Bhawan, Rajpath Area,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi -110001
2. Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals
Through Its Director
Bangla Sahib Marg
New Delhi - 110001
3. Director Professor & Head
Department of Neonatology
Convenor, National Collaborative Centre for Facility-Based
Newborn Care
Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital
Lady Hardinge Medical College,
Bangla Sahib Marg New Delhi - 110001
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. Neelima Rathore)
DEEKSHA 2026.05.22
DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30'
3
Item No. 27 (C-2)
O.A. No. 1293/2025
and
O.A. No. 1339/2025
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand Member (A)
1. The facts involved in the above two O.As. and the circumstances which have led to the filing of the O.A. are identical.
2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, we have decided to deal with both the O.As. by way of a common order. However, as we have heard O.A. No. 1293/2025, we will take it as the lead case and wherever there is any departure in the facts in O.A. No. 1339/2025 we shall be mentioning that in the order.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant herein was appointed as an Assistant Administrative Officer in the National Collaborative Centre (NCC) for Facility Based Newborn Care (FBNC) at Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital, New Delhi, on 09.10.2012 based on an interview which she had attended on 04.10.2012. In O.A. No. 1339/2025, the applicant therein had been appointed as Data Entry Operator by way of offer of appointment dated 01.06.2017 after having attended the interview dated 03.05.2017.Both the appointments have been done on DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 4 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025 contract basis. However, the applicant in O.A. No. 1293/2025 was issued a showcause notice dated 20.11.2024 stating that she is continuing on the rolls of NCCFBNC without being recruited beyond 31.12.2012. Thereafter, when the applicant had given her reply to the said showcause notice and also bringing to the notice of the respondents that they have been irregular in paying her remuneration and she had also brought to the notice of the respondents the emails written by a fellow colleague (Ms. Pinki) in the department who has offered her resignation on the ground of irregular payment of remuneration/salary. The applicant alleges that the respondents have chosen to illegally terminate her offer of appointment by way of letter issued on 15.03.2025 by way of giving her one month's notice of their intention to terminate her. Aggrieved by the said order dated 15.03.2025, the applicant had approached this Tribunal and by way of an interim order dated 09.10.2025, the applicant was permitted to continue on the said post with a direction to the respondents to pay her salary. Learned counsel for the applicant has brought to the notice of the Tribunal the averments of the respondents DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 5 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025 contained at page 18 of the counter reply whereby vide office order dated 12.06.2025, it is stated that "the project National Collaborative Centre for Facility Based New Born Care is hereby closed with immediate effect. Any future MOHFW assigned FBNC observer trainings and allied technical activities will henceforth be undertaken directly by the Department of Neonatology, KSCH, using departmental resources available with them.".Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the applicant has approached the Tribunal by way of the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"1. To quash / set aside the termination order/letter dated 15.03.2025 vide reference no. KSCH/NEO/2025/107/1181 issued to the applicant and allow the applicant to continue her official duty as Assistant Administrative Officer for NCC - FBNC at Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital and
2. to regularize the services of the applicant from the date of her initial appointment with all the consequential benefits as the applicant invested her more than 12 years with unblemished official duty and
3.Any other or further order /relief which this Hon'ble tribunal may deem just and proper, in favor of applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case."
DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 6 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025
4. Learned counsel for the applicant clearly states that the initial appointment on the part of both the applicants was by way of a walk in interview where they had participated. Although, the initial engagement was only till 31.12.2012, the applicant has been performing the duty till the time of filing of the O.A. and as such she has put in more than 13 years of uninterrupted service with the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant also submits that although at page 16 of the counter reply the respondents have taken a stand that the said project work has been closed as per the directions of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the respondents have not been able to place any such directions from the Ministry. On one of the previous occasions when the matter was being heard, vide order dated 09.10.2025 the following was directed:-
"Heard the learned counsels for the parties. It is apparent from the pleadings on record and it is also not disputed by the learned counsels for the parties that the applicant in O.A. No. 1293/2025, vide offer of appointment dated 09.10.2012, was offered the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in the National Collaborative Centre for Facility-Based NewBorn Care at Kalawati Saran Children Hospital, on behalf of UNICEF and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Similarly, the applicant in O.A. No. 1339/2025 was offered the post of Data Entry Operator vide offer of DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 7 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025 appointment dated 01.06.2017, in the said centre at the said Hospital on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It is also not in dispute that before the impugned order of termination, the applicants had been continuing on their respective posts uninterruptedly.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the said centre was funded by UNICEF and since UNICEF has stopped funding, it has become impossible for the respondents to run the centre and continue the applicants in service. Hence, the impugned orders of discontinuation were passed. Though the counter reply and additional affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents, however, the same do not indicate any decision of Respondent No. 1 which would may throw light to substantiate that the continuation of the centre is no more required.
Is it the case of Respondent No. 1 that the centre is not performing satisfactorily, and therefore, inasmuch as the UNICEF has stopped its funding ? The Bench would want to know the response of Respondent No. 1 that whether they are satisfied with the funding of the centre at Kalawati Saran Children Hospital and it is only the financial constraint inasmuch as the UNICEF has stopped its funding, which is forcing the Respondent No. 1 to close the centre or is it that they are closing the centre on account of various audit objections which have been raised.
If it is only that the UNICEF funding or lack of it is forcing the Respondent No. 1 to close this centre, would the Respondent No. 1 be ready to seek further funds for running of the centre, if it has satisfied the objectives behind establishing this centre in the public interest."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant states that it is not the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare which has decided to close the project and the hospital authority on its own DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 8 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025 accord had decided to close this project. Under these circumstances, inasmuch as the applicants are being continuing in the said post in an uninterrupted manner for more than 13 years and they have participated in an interview and have been discharging their duty diligently and they have sought intervention of the Tribunal for continuing their services and also for regularizing them in the said post. In support thereof, the learned counsels for the applicants have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Versus State of UP and Anr. in CA No. 8558/2018 dated 19.08.2025. Paras 8-11 of the same read as under:-
"8. The State's refusal of 11.11.1999 cites "financial constraints" and the subsequent decision of 25.11.2003 (taken after the High Court's direction to reconsider) adverts to financial crisis and a ban on creation of posts. Neither decision engages with relevant considerations placed on record, namely, the Commission's 1991 resolution and repeated proposals, the acknowledged administrative exigencies of a recruiting body handling large cycles, the continuous deployment of these very hands for years, and the existence of attendant work that is primarily perennial rather than sporadic. While creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. We believe that a non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of "financial DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 9 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025 constraints", ignoring functional necessity and the employer's own longstanding reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution.
9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of applications, dispatch and office support, and driving, has been continuous and integral to the Commission's functioning since their engagement between 1989 and 1992. The Commission itself moved for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers including the appellants. That consistent internal demand, coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of the appellants' labour on regular office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the duties are perennial. To continue extracting such work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength is a position that cannot be sustained.
10. It must be noted that the premise of "no vacancy"
is, in any event, contradicted by the evidence on record. An RTI response of 22.01.2010 received from the office of Respondent No.2 indicated existence of Class-IV vacancies. Furthermore, I.A. No. 109487 of 2020 filed before this Court by the appellants specifically pointed to at least five vacant Class- IV/Guard posts and one vacant Driver post within the establishment. That application also set out the names of similarly situated daily wagers who were regularised earlier within the same Commission. No rebuttal was filed to the I.A. The unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison with those who received regularisation materially undermine the High Court's conclusion that no vacancy existed and reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis persons similarly placed. Selective regularisation in the same establishment, while continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties with those regularized, is a clear violation of equity. DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 10 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 11 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade.
Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
.........
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 12 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025 often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 13 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025 their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."""
6. The reliance of the learned counsels for the applicant on the said judgment is to buttress her claim that the respondents cannot be allowed to take the ground of financial constraints for closing the projects and consequentially, remove the applicants.
7. Learned counsels for the respondents by way of referring to the assertions made in the counter reply and the additional affidavit filed in response to the directions issued by the Tribunal on 09.10.2025, have very clearly stated that the said project was initially funded by the UNICEF up to the year 2015 and the judgment cited by the applicant is not applicable in the present case, especially, when there has been no advertisement for the said post and the applicant had been appointed based on a walk in interview. The learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of the Bench to their office order dated 12.06.2025 which has been alluded to in para 3 of this judgment. Further, he submits that there is no evidence of the applicants being invited to attend the walk in interviews and there has been no sanctioned post and also the project is also not of a DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 14 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025 perennial nature and in such circumstances of back door entry for a non-sanctioned post and that too for a project which has come to a closure, the Tribunal cannot be allowed to pass an order favourable to the applicants.
8. However, during the course of oral arguments, learned counsels have agreed that in the eventuality of this project being revived due to the funding of external agencies including the UNICEF and/or government agencies, if fresh contractual employments are sought to be made, then preference will be given to the applicants herein including by way of giving age relaxation up to the number of years of service in contractual employment put in by these applicants. They have also submitted that there will not be any recourse to recovery on account of payment of remuneration made to the applicants either by way of a decision taken by the respondents or by way of an interim direction given by the Tribunal.
9. In the facts and circumstances and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the O.As are disposed of with the following directions:-
DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 15 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025 i. No interference in the impugned order/action of the respondents is warranted.
ii. The respondents would grant first preference to the applicants for any future contractual employment associated with the revival of the aforementioned centre in the respondents' organization either by way of funding through external agencies including UNICEF or any other agency of the government as per their qualifications.
iii. The respondents shall also grant age relaxation to the extent of the period rendered by the applicant in the contractual employment of the respondents referred to above.
iv. The respondents shall release the salary of the applicants for the period that they have served in terms of the contract into between the parties as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. All the associated M.As. stand disposed of accordingly. DEEKSHA 2026.05.22 DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30' 16 Item No. 27 (C-2) O.A. No. 1293/2025 and O.A. No. 1339/2025
11. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
12.Let a copy of this order be placed in the judicial files of both the O.As.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dd /
DEEKSHA 2026.05.22
DHINGRA 15:21:40+05'30'