Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Davinder Kaur vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 12 December, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.465 OF 2019
Orders reserved on : 25.11.2025
Orders pronounced on : 12.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
DAVINDER KAUR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
DESIGNATION - LAB TECHNICIAN
GROUP - 'C'
W/O SH. DHARMINDER SINGH
R/O 24/49B TILAK NAGAR
NEW DELHI - 110018.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Pankaj K Modi)
VERSUS
1. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
THROUGH DIRECTOR,
ANSARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-29
2. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVT. OF INDIA,
THROUGH SECRETARY,
NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
(1) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of applicant as Laboratory technician, 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32 +05'30' Item No.64/C-4 2 OA No.465/2019 (2) The Hon'ble tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to give equal pay to the applicant as paid to regular technician from the date of initial appointment i.e 19.11.1992 retrospectively, in the interest of justice.
(3) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
FACTS IN BRIEF AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT
2. The applicant, vide memorandum dated 12.12.1992 (Annexure A-1), was appointed to the post of Field Worker and allowed to join duty w.e.f. 21.11.1992 in the Department of Paediatrics on an ad-hoc basis under Dr. Bhan, for a period of three months, on a pay of Rs.2,000/- per month.
2.1 The applicant, vide memorandum dated 16.09.1993 (Annexure A-2), was appointed to the post of Lab Technician and allowed to join duty w.e.f. 17.07.1993 in the Department of Dermatology on an ad-hoc basis for a period of three months, on a pay of Rs. 2,100/- per month. 2.2 The applicant, vide memorandum dated 30.04.1998 (Annexure A-3), was again appointed to the post of Lab Technician and allowed to join duty w.e.f. 12.02.1998 in the Department of Genetic Unit on an ad-hoc basis for a period of three months, on a pay of Rs.3,960/- per month.
2.3 The respondents, vide memorandum dated 18.12.1998 (Annexure A-4), revised the pay of staff from Rs.3,960/- per month to Rs. 4,400/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.1997.
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32
+05'30'
Item No.64/C-4 3 OA No.465/2019
2.4 The applicant, vide memorandum dated 01.06.2000
(Annexure A-7), was appointed to the post of Field Worker and allowed to join duty w.e.f. 01.06.2000 in the Department of H.N.U on an ad-hoc basis for a period of three months, on a pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month.
2.5 The applicant, vide memorandum dated 11.04.2001 (Annexure A-5), was appointed to the post of Lab Technician and allowed to join duty w.e.f. 01.03.2001 in the Department of H.N.U on an ad-hoc basis for a period of three months, on a pay of Rs.3,795/- per month. 2.6 The applicant, vide memorandum dated 25.01.2003 (Annexure A-6), was appointed to the post of Lab Technician and allowed to join duty w.e.f. 04.09.2002 to 31.12.2002 in the Department of Medicine on an ad-hoc basis, on a pay of Rs.5,960/- per month. 2.7 It is also stated by the applicant that the Professor and Head of the Department, vide letter dated 13.09.2003 (Annexure A-8), stated that the applicant is suitable for the vacant posts of three Technicians in the Department of Medico-Legal Services using DNA Fingerprint techniques.
2.8 The applicant, vide letter dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure A-9), submitted an application along with her C.V. for the vacant posts of Technicians in the Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology. The applicant, vide another letter dated 02.09.2003, reiterated that she had already submitted an application along with her C.V. for the vacant 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32 +05'30' Item No.64/C-4 4 OA No.465/2019 posts of Technicians in the Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology.
2.9 The applicant again submitted a requisition letter dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure A-10) for the position of Lab Technician, highlighting her work experience and recommendations of Dr. T.D. Dogra, as well as referencing earlier letters and reminders sent to the respondents, which were not acted upon.
2.10 The Administrative Officer (Grievance), Sh. M.S. Yadav, vide letter dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A-11), forwarded the applicant's grievance letter dated 16.08.2013 to the Sr. Administrative Officer, AIIMS, for necessary action.
2.11 The applicant, vide letter dated 23.12.2013 (Annexure A-12), requested the Director, AIIMS, to consider her application for the post of Lab Technician.
2.12 The respondents, vide memorandum dated 08.09.2015 (Annexure A-13), informed the applicant that she cannot be regularized. No reason or justification was provided. 2.13 The applicant submitted a representation dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure A-14) seeking equal pay for equal work, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi. Hence, this OA seeking the reliefs as stated above.
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32
+05'30'
Item No.64/C-4 5 OA No.465/2019
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel submitted that despite various reminders and letters, the respondents have never acceded so far and have not even bothered about the injustice on their part, while continuing to pay a very meagre salary to the applicant. The applicant has been working since 1993 on a very low remuneration. Despite having worked for such a long period, neither was the applicant considered for regularization nor was she given equal salary and other benefits as are given to permanent Lab Technicians working with the respondents.
4.1 Learned counsel also submitted that permanent Lab Technicians are drawing a sum of Rs. 55,000/- per month along with many other benefits and leave, whereas the applicant is drawing only Rs. 15,000/- per month.
4.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the concerned authority failed to consider the request of the applicant to regularize her on the post of Lab Technician, and failed to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, in terms of which she is entitled to be regularized after completion of 10 years of continuous service.
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32
+05'30'
Item No.64/C-4 6 OA No.465/2019
4.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the concerned authority
failed to appreciate the principle of Natural Justice, i.e., Equal Pay for Equal Work.
4.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the concerned authority failed to consider that the applicant has been giving her full time and dedicated service to the respondents, has only one source of income (i.e., working under the respondents), and is living a life of penury and abject poverty. Therefore, her case requires consideration on humanitarian grounds.
4.5 Learned counsel further submitted that Dr. T.D. Dogra, Ex- Director/Professor & Head, Department of Forensic Medicine, had strongly recommended the case of the applicant for the post of Laboratory Technician in September 2003. Further, in the year 2003, 18 cases of different cadres were approved for regularization, but the case of the applicant was left out solely due to the lapses on the part of the administration.
4.6 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant has served approximately 23 years with the respondents, she has now become over- aged and cannot find any other job outside the respondents/AIIMS. The applicant has vast experience in molecular biology techniques, which is essential for laboratory work.
4.7 Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in support of the claim of the applicant:-
2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32 +05'30' Item No.64/C-4 7 OA No.465/2019
(i) Vinod Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327; and
(ii) Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018 decided on 19.08.2025.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the counter rely submitted that in the year 1997, the application for adhoc appointment to the post of the Laboratory Technician was rejected by the competent authority as she was not possessing the qualification from a recognized institution. The applicant was not fulfilling the recruitment rules for the post of Laboratory Technician, as she was holding a diploma in Medical Lab Technologist from institute of Public Health and Hygine, Mahipalpur and the same was not recognized diploma.
5.1 Learned counsel also submitted that the candidature of the applicant for ad hoc appointment to the Post of Laboratory Technician was rejected, as the age limit for the post was 30 years and the applicant was overage. Further, the applicant was receiving all her wages as per the minimum wages for skilled workers in accordance with the terms of the latest order of the Labour Department, Government of NCT Delhi. 5.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was engaged to the post of Medical Lab Technologist on outsource basis 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32 +05'30' Item No.64/C-4 8 OA No.465/2019 through M/ s BECIL and therefore she was not the employee of the AIIMS - respondent and, therefore, the respondent is not a necessary and a proper party in the Application. All the claim and issues are to be resolved between the applicant and M/s BECIL in 2018 as there is no employer employee relationship between the applicant and the respondent - AIIMS. The pay was accordingly fixed as per the minimum wages for skilled workers in terms with the latest orders of Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
5.3 Learned counsel also argued that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be applied mechanically in every case. Further Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on the qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped, the quality and nature of work performed, differences in educational or technical qualifications which bear upon the skills brought to the job, as well as the extent of responsibility attached to the post. Further, the applicability of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of multiple dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required, the degree of dexterity involved, and the nature and complexity of duties may substantially differ from one post to another. The Competent Authority of the Respondent duly considered every application and representation submitted by the Applicant, though the same were ultimately not approved. Further, the applicant was engaged purely on a contractual basis for a specified period, and her services were further outsourced through the firm M/s BECIL. Therefore, the respondent was under no obligation to hire or regularize her services. No employer-employee 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32 +05'30' Item No.64/C-4 9 OA No.465/2019 relationship exists between the applicant and the Respondent. Accordingly, the present OA is unjustified, arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable and deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the applicant.
7. At the outset, we observe that the applicant's own pleadings and annexures show repeated ad-hoc/contractual engagements for intermediate periods and not continuous one from 1992 to 2013 and thereafter from 2018 that too explicit outsourcing through M/s BECIL. Where an engagement is routed through an outsourcing or contracting agency, and the remuneration is paid in accordance with that arrangement, the so-called 'principal employer' cannot, in law, be treated as the direct employer for the purposes of seeking regularisation or parity of pay. A claim of direct employment arises only where the applicant demonstrates cogent material to establish that the respondent- institution had, in substance, assumed the attributes of an employer, such as making a direct appointment to a sanctioned post, drawing salary from the regular establishment, exercising administrative and disciplinary control in its own right, or otherwise treating the individual as part of its permanent workforce. In the absence of such indicators of a master-servant relationship, no legal obligation is cast upon the respondent-AIIMS to regularise the engagement or extend the benefits available to its regular employees.
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32
+05'30'
Item No.64/C-4 10 OA No.465/2019
Absence of such material, the Tribunal cannot direct regularisation or equal pay by the Respondent - AIIMS.
8. We also find that the applicant's appointments are shown to be intermittent, short ad-hoc stints (1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007 and 2018 through M/s BECIL in the Department of Histopathology of the respondent - AIIMS with an unexplained and long gap thereafter notably between 2007 and 2018, and different departments and posts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions on regularisation presuppose continuous/perennial performance of the same or comparable duties against sanctioned posts, not sporadic short ad-hoc engagements scattered over decades. The facts as stated by the applicant itself make it clear that there is no unbroken continuous service of 10 years in the same cadre/establishment necessary to base a claim for regularisation.
9. The respondents have alleged that the applicant did not possess a qualification recognized under the recruitment rules for the post of Laboratory Technician at the relevant time (the diploma so possessed by the applicant was not recognized. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's jurisprudence distinguishes between procedural irregularity, which in some cases may be regularised, and substantive non-eligibility, which negates entitlement.
10. We further observe that the contention of the applicant is that she was not paid remuneration as per her entitlement during her engagement under the respondent - AIIMS and on the other hand, the 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32 +05'30' Item No.64/C-4 11 OA No.465/2019 respondents contention is that she had been paid remuneration as per the minimum wages for skilled workers in terms with the orders of the Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. However, there is nothing on record placed by the respondents, which substantiate the said contention of the respondents.
11. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra) are entirely different as is evident from the facts of the case in Vinod Kumar (supra), the appellants were in continuous service in capacities of regular employees, performing duties similar to those in permanent posts and selected through similar process as that of regular recruitment. Likewise in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), the appellants were in continuous engagement between 1989 to 1999 as Class-III/IV and in 1999, the Commission sought for sanctioning of two posts of Drivers and ten posts for Peon/Mali/Chowkidar due to administrative exigencies which request was rejected by the State by citing financial constraints. Therefore, the same judgments are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the applicant's claim for regularisation and the same is rejected. However, we direct the respondents to re-examine the applicant's claim regarding the payment made to her during the period of her engagement under AIIMS, whether directly or through the outsourcing agency M/s BECIL, keeping in view the fact that, for certain periods, her engagement was on an ad-hoc basis. It is evident from Annexures A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, A-
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32
+05'30'
Item No.64/C-4 12 OA No.465/2019
6, A-7 and revision of pay carried out by respondents as per Annexure A-4 on 18.12.1998 that the applicant was engaged directly by the respondents. The respondents shall also take into consideration the applicable rules, instructions, and guidelines governing such engagements and arrive at remuneration to be paid to the applicant during such intermittent engagements. If any amount is found due and admissible to the applicant upon such reconsideration, the same shall be released to her forthwith. If no dues are found payable, the respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order communicating the basis for such decision. The entire exercise shall be completed within 06 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
13. The present OA is disposed of in terms of the above directions.
14. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:32
+05'30'