Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Love Thakur vs Rajesh Bhushan Secretary & Ors M/O ... on 13 August, 2025
1
Item No. 13(C-3)
C.P. No.444/2022
in
O.A.2487/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
C.P. No. 444/2022
in
O.A. No.2487/2016
M.A. No.1559/2024
Order reserved on : 07.08.2025
Order pronounced on : 13.08.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Love Thakur, Age-39 years,
S/o Sh. Mukteshwar Thakur,
B-66/5, Baljit Nagar,
Nanglooi, Delhi-86
2. Nitin Kumar Gupta, Age-27 years,
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Garg,
H.No.-68, Near Post Office,
Siraspur, Delhi
3. Ravi, Age-31 years,
S/o Late Sh. Mahender,
D-11,Dispensary Chowk,
Bhajanpur, Delhi-53
4. Rutesh Kumar, Age-29 years,
S/o Sh. Netrapal Singh,
C-1029, Netaji Nagar,
Delhi-23
5. Ms. Bhagwati, Age-26 years,
D/o Sh. Rajinder Singh,
H-479, Type-II,
Kali Bari Marg,
New Delhi-110001
6. Ms. Priyanka, Age-31,
D/o Sh. Rajinder Singh,
25, Baldev Park,
New Delhi-51
2
Item No. 13(C-3)
C.P. No.444/2022
in
O.A.2487/2016
7. Kundan Lal, Age-35 years,
S/o Sh. Inderpal,
2/96, Harijan Basti,
New Rohtak Road,
New Delhi-110005
8. Ravi Kumar, Age-33 years,
S/o Sh. Khub Ram,
H.No.-573m, Near Old SBI Bank,
Badli Village,
Delhi-42
9. Ms. Meenal Sardar, Age-28 years,
D/o Sh. Vinayak Sardar,
R/o A-48, Gali No.-7, Shakti Vihar,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-59
10. Naveen Rajput, Age-26 years,
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar,
H.o.-6755, Qila Kadam Sharif,
Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-55
11. Vicky Goyal, Age-30 years,
S/o Sh. Parmod Goyal
House No. 1435, Faiz Ganj
Bahadur Garh Road, Delhi-110006.
12. Ms. Pushpa, Age-36 years,
D/o Sh. Paltan Lal,
H.No.-B-63, Rani Garden,
Shashtri Nagar,
Delhi-31
13. Ms. Veenu Kasturia, Age-32 years,
D/o Late Sh. Vinod Kumar Kapoor,
H.N. A-107, Srajmal Vihar,
Delhi-110 092
14. Ashok Kumar Soni, Age-38 years,
S/o Late Sh. J.L. Soni,
D-263/2, Krishna Park,
Khanpur, Delhi-62
15. Sandeep Singh Negi, Age-27 years,
S/o Sh. Vikram Singh Negi,
B-109, Azad Vihar,
3
Item No. 13(C-3)
C.P. No.444/2022
in
O.A.2487/2016
Khora Colony, Ghaziabad, UP
16. Pankaj Kumar, Age-29 years
S/o Sh. Surender Kumar
621/1A/2B, 18 Quarter
Vishwas Nagar
Vishnu ali, Shahdara,
Delhi-32
...Petitioners
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Sh. Rajesh Bhushan,
Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Dr. Nandini Duggal,
Medical Superintendent,
Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. R.B. Khushwaha,
The Dy. Director (Admn.),
Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh with Shri Anil Bhati,
AO, Departmental Representative)
4
Item No. 13(C-3)
C.P. No.444/2022
in
O.A.2487/2016
ORDER
By Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) :-
The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order of this Tribunal passed in the associated OA on 28.11.2022. The operative portion of the Order in OA reads as under:-
"20. In view of the above-said judgments cited hereinabove, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, time and again, has reiterated the fact that no adhoc/temporary/casual employee shall be replaced by another adhoc/temporary/casual employee which amounts to arbitrariness of the respondents. There is another reason qua lie them to continue with the department, as they have performed their duties for more than a decade and they are quite experienced in working in a particular hospital. Thus, all the more necessary, if the respondent no. 1 will engage in future a fresh recruitee for the said post, obviously they will take some time and this circle will reoccur which is not in accordance with the legal position held by Hon‟ble Apex Court. Thus, we are of the considered view that the applicants can be allowed to continue with the respondents on contract basis de hors the fresh recruitee to the said post on contract/adhoc/casual basis. In any way, if this present Original Application succeeds, we hereby direct that the impugned order dated 12.07.2016 is set aside and the applicants would be entitled to continue on their respective posts till they are replaced by regular selected candidates."5
Item No. 13(C-3) C.P. No.444/2022 in O.A.2487/2016
2. By an earlier order, presence of the Medical Superintendent, RML Hospital, was called for. Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since Sh. Anil Bhati, Administrative Officer, who is present in the Court and is the head of the administration of the hospital, is well-versed with the matter, it was thought appropriate to call upon his presence and assist us in place of the Medical Superintendent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the services of the petitioners have been disengaged immediately after the decision in O.A. No. 2487/2016. As a consequence, the petitioners were persuaded to file the present Contempt Petition. He made the following submissions :
(i) There is no regular recruitment exercise after the decision in the O.A. It had already taken place before the O.A. was decided and only after taking note of the same, the O.A. was allowed.
(ii) The work of the petitioners is perennial in nature and their services could not be dispensed with. 6
Item No. 13(C-3) C.P. No.444/2022 in O.A.2487/2016
(iii) The respondents have proceeded to fill up the same vacancies by a different nomenclature i.e. DEO, whereby, as many as 57 persons have been employed as Data Entry Operators on contractual basis through an outsource agency and, they are performing the work done by the petitioners. Therefore, the conduct of the respondents is contemptuous.
(iv) Each of the contentions in the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents on 23.02.2023 has been in existence even on the date when the order dated 28.11.2022 in OA was passed. To be specific, the cadre review had already taken place and the vacancy position was before the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and the fact that the respondents have proceeded to employ persons through outsourcing agency on contractual basis was also before the Tribunal and, therefore, there is no change in circumstances that would invite intervention.
(v) The conduct of the respondents is contemptuous.
4. Sh. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions 7 Item No. 13(C-3) C.P. No.444/2022 in O.A.2487/2016 made by Sh. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners. He drew attention to the operative portion of the order dated 28.11.2022. He emphasized that the Tribunal had directed to continue the petitioners only on the posts occupied by them. He submitted that the posts occupied by the petitioners have not been assigned to anyone on contractual basis.
5. Sh. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, upon instructions from Sh. Anil Bhati, Administrative Officer, who is present in the Court, submitted that there are two persons employed from the outsource agency as LDCs but the posts assigned to them are not the posts occupied by the petitioners at the initial stage. He drew attention to para 5 of the affidavit and submitted that initially there were 95 sanctioned posts, however, after a cadre review exercise in the year 2022, i.e. prior to the date of the Order in the OA i.e. 28.11.2022, the vacancy position of the LDC was reduced to 44 posts. He submitted that the regular employees as LDC are 66 in number which is already in excess of the sanctioned strength with the respondents after cadre review and, therefore, the respondents are not in a position to 8 Item No. 13(C-3) C.P. No.444/2022 in O.A.2487/2016 allow the petitioners to continue to work or to re- engage them. He submitted that as an abundant caution, the present petitioners were extended an opportunity to apply through GeM/outsource agency against the two vacancies of LDC, but they refused to join the same.
6. In rejoinder, Sh. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention to M.A. No. 1559/2024, wherein the response to the RTI has been placed on record, which confirms that there are 15 vacancies unfilled for the post of LDC. One of the petitioners has been employed through the outsource agency as the Data Entry Operator and is performing the duties of LDC.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the submissions made by them.
8. The order dated 28.11.2022 in OA No.2487/2016 has directed the respondents not to replace the applicants in the OA, who were on contractual basis, with another set of employees on contractual/ad hoc/casual basis. It is fairly admitted 9 Item No. 13(C-3) C.P. No.444/2022 in O.A.2487/2016 by both the parties that the respondents have not replaced the present applicants, while discontinued them on contractual service, with another set of employees on contractual/adhoc/casual basis. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly averred that the action by the respondents by adopting a new method of getting the desired service for their organizational purpose through outsourcing agencies amounts to something as replacement of present applicants by another set of contractual/adhoc/casual employees.
9. This Tribunal is not inclined to accept this averment by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The order dated 28.11.2022 has not prohibited the respondents to adopt any new method of getting services from the private sector on contractual basis for furtherance of the objectives of the organization. This order cannot be interpreted that the respondents are bound to employ permanent and regular employees to discharge the functions assigned to the respondents by the Government. Furthermore, the said order does not bind the respondents in perpetuity to conduct their business in a particular 10 Item No. 13(C-3) C.P. No.444/2022 in O.A.2487/2016 way. Such a decision to conduct their task of public affairs falls under the domain of policy matter and this Tribunal is not supposed to interfere in policy matters, unless such policy matter is challenged on grounds of violation of the provisions of the Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
10. The respondents have not replaced the contractual employees like the present applicants by another set of casual/ad hoc/contractual employees. The respondents have adopted a new method of executing their task and engagement with private sector. The order dated 28.11.2022 has not adjudicated such issues. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there is no deliberate disobedience of the order of this Tribunal by the respondents.
11. Hence, the Contempt Petition is closed. Notices are discharged.
12. Pending MA, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
„rk‟