Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dr Urvashi Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 27 November, 2025
1
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.892 of 2021
This the 27th Day of November, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
1. Dr. Urvashi Sharma a/a 35 yrs. w/o Satendra, resident of
Behind Hanuman Mandir, 194, Gopal Nagar, Bareilly,
Homeopathic Physician, Employee's State Insurance
Corporation Hospital, Sleeper Road, C.B. Ganj, District
Bareilly.
2. Kiswar Jahan, daughter of Mohd. Aleem, r/o 7/538, Madina
Bad, Masjid Behind Danpur Compound, Nai Abadi
Rasalganj, Koil, District Aligarh, Homeopathic Pharmacist,
Employee's State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Sleeper
Road, C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly.
....Applicants.
By Advocates: Mr. Sunil/Mr. R. Gaur/Mr. A.P. Srivastava.
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and
Employment, Government of India, New Delhi,
2. Director General, Employee's State Insurance Corporation,
Panchdeep Bhawan Kamred Indrajeet Gupta Marg, New
Delhi,
3. Medical Superintendent, Employee's State Insurance
Corporation Hospital, Sleeper Road, C.B.Ganj, District
Bareilly.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Arvind Kumar Goswami.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA
2
ORDER
Mr. Sunil, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -
"(A) To pass an order of quashing the order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure No.A 1) in respect of post of Medical Officer (Homeopathic) and Pharmacist and consequently pass an order directing the respondent to allow the petitioners to work in the department to the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathic) and Pharmacist respectively till posts are filled up by regular employees treating the service of the applicants cannot be replaced by another contractual employees;
(B) any other and further order as it deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(C) Award cost of petition to the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants, Dr. Urvashi Sharma (Homeopathic Physician) and Kiswar Jahan (Homeopathic Pharmacist), were engaged on contractual basis in ESIC Hospital, Bareilly pursuant to advertisement dated 17.03.2020 and selection held on 24.07.2020. Their tenure was initially for one year, which was extended during the Covid-19 period owing to satisfactory service. Subsequently, by notice dated 19.08.2021, their services were terminated w.e.f. 18.09.2021, and a fresh advertisement dated 26.08.2021 was issued for filling up the same posts. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants approached this Tribunal contending that their discontinuance and replacement by other contractual employees was arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to settled law that one contractual employee cannot be substituted by another.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 3
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present Original Application has been filed assailing the termination order dated 19.08.2021 and consequential fresh recruitment notice dated 26.08.2021, whereby the applicants, engaged on contractual basis as Homeopathic Physician and Homeopathic Pharmacist in ESIC Hospital, Bareilly, were discontinued. It was urged that the applicants, having been duly selected and having rendered satisfactory service, are entitled to continue till regular incumbents join, and prayed for quashing of the impugned orders and for a direction to allow them to work on their respective posts till such time.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the engagement of the applicants was purely contractual for a fixed period of one year, governed by specific terms and conditions duly signed by them. As per the contract, the tenure could be terminated or short-closed at any time by giving one month's notice, without assigning any reason, and no claim for regularization was maintainable. It was further contended that the extension earlier granted was only due to Covid-19 exigencies, and thereafter fresh advertisements dated 26.08.2021 and 01.12.2022 were issued in accordance with policy, pursuant to which new incumbents were selected and joined. Applicant no.1 also participated in the subsequent selection processes but failed to secure appointment, while the post of Homeopathic Pharmacist was decided to be filled through manpower agency as per headquarters' circular dated 29.04.2016. Thus, the respondents argued that the impugned notice dated 19.08.2021 was strictly in terms of the contract and policy, the SHAKUNTALA VERMA 4 OA has become infructuous after completion of fresh recruitment, and no right survives in favour of the applicants.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants fairly submitted that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide their pending representation dated 18.09.2021 and subsequent reminders, in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if a direction is issued for disposing of the pending representation dated 18.09.2021 of the applicants, in accordance with law, within the stipulated time.
8. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the applicants were engaged purely on contractual basis for a fixed tenure, which stood extended during the Covid-19 period, and thereafter terminated by notice dated 19.08.2021. It is also evident that fresh recruitment has already been undertaken and new incumbents have joined. The rejoinder filed by the applicants does not bring any new material beyond reiteration of the original averments.
9. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without delving into the merits, delay, and laches of the case, the instant Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the applicants' pending representation dated 18.09.2021 along SHAKUNTALA VERMA 5 with subsequent reminders. The decision shall be taken by way of a reasoned and speaking order, under intimation to the applicants, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this O.A. stands disposed of.
11. No order as to costs.
12. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (J) /Shakuntala/ SHAKUNTALA VERMA