Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jaidev Sharma vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 7 August, 2025
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017
Central Administrative
Tribunal Principal Bench, New
Delhi
O.A. No. 2028/2017
Reserved on: 23.07.2025
Pronounced on: 07.08.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member(A)
1. MR. JAIDEV SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 44 YEARS, S/O SH. R.D.
SHARMA, R/O C-13/114,
C 13/114, SECTOR
SECTOR-3,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
DELHI
2. MR. S.K. CHAUDHARY JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 49 YEARS, S/O SH.
RAMRUP CHAUDHARY, R/O B-3/141,
B 3/141,
SECTOR ROHINI,DELHI-110085.
SECTOR-6, 110085.
3. MR. SURENDER KUMAR JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 48 YEARS, S/O SH. RAM
KUMAR, R/0 316, VILLAGE & P.O.
KUTUB GARH, DELHI-110039.
DELHI
4. MR. GOPI RAM JUNIOR ENGINEER
AGE 43 YEARS, S/O SH. PARSHURAM,
R/O H.NO.21, VILLAGE MUKUNDPUR,
NEAR MCD PRIMARY SCHOOL, DELHI-
110042.
5. MR. AJAY AGGARWAL JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 47 YEARS, S/O SH. R.P.
AGGARWAL, R/O H-3/56,
H 3/56, SECTOR
SECTOR-11,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
DELHI
6. MR. RAKESH NAIN JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 43 YEARS, S/O LATE SH.
ATTAR SINGH, R/O FLAT NO.32, PLOT
NO.6, SHRI HARI APARTMENT,
APARTMENT, SECTOR
SECTOR-
12, DWARKA, DELHI.
Page 1 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017
7. MR. NARESH KUMAR JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 45 YEARS,S/O LATE SH.
OM PRAKASH, R/O H-19/19
H 19/19 1ST FLOOR,
SECTOR ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
SECTOR-7, 110085.
8. MR. SHYAM LAL JUNIOR ENGINEER
AGE 47 YEARS, S/O SH. JEESUKH
PRASAD, R/O HIMALAYA APARTMENT,
FLAT NO.112, РОСКЕТ-А,
РОСКЕТ А, SECTOR
SECTOR-2,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
DELHI
9. MR. SUBHASH SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 52 YEARS, S/O SH.
SURESH CHANDRA, R/0 1208, PANNA
PAPOSIYA, NARELA, DELHI.
10. MR. DHARMA DUTT SHARMA
JUNIOR ENGINEER, AGE 47 YEARS, S/O
LATE SH. VIDYA NAND SHARMA, R/O
M-7/D
7/D-11,
11, JULEYLAL APARTMENT,
PITAM PURA, DELHI.
11. MR. ATUL SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 47 YEARS S/O SH. R.N.
SHARMA, R/O A-173,
A 173, MEERA BAGH,
NEW DELHI.
12. MR. ARUN KUMAR JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 45 YEARS, S/O SH.
VASU DEV, R/O H.NO.96, VILLAGE &
POST OFFICE, GURUKUL DAURILL
MEERUT.
13. MR. VIPIN SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 39 YEARS, S/O SH. R.D.
SHARMA, R/O C-10/35,
C 10/35, YAMUNA VIHAR,
DELHI
DELHI-53.
14. MR. SUNIL DABAS JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 47 YEARS, S/O SH. JAI
SINGH DABAS R/O FLAT NO.55,
POCKET SECTOR-23,
POCKET-I, 23, ROHINI, DELHI
DELHI-
110085.
Page 2 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017
15. MR. DHIRENDER KUMAR JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 46 YEARS, S/O SH.
SAHIB SINGH, R/0 97, VAISHALI,
PITAMPURA, DELHI-110088.
DELHI
16. MR. VIKAS SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 40 YEARS, S/O SH. P.N.
SHARMA R/O 27/78, GALI NO.8,VISWAS
NAGAR, SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032.
110032.
17. MR. RAVINDER SIROHI JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 44 YEARS, S/O SH.
DESHPAL, R/0 25, BLOCK-A,
BLOCK A, VILLAGE
RAJPUR KHURD COLONY, MEHRAULI,
P.O. MAIDAN GARHI, NEAR
CHATARPUR MANDIR, DELHI.
18. MR. DINESH CHAND JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 50 YEARS, S/OS/O LATE SH.
B.P. SHARMA, R/O C-79-A,
C A, JITAR NAGAR,
NEW PIRWANA ROAD, DELHI-110051.
DELHI 110051.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M K Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD (DSIIDC LTD.)
THROUGH IT'S MANAGING
DIRECTOR, N-36,
N BOMBAY LIFE
BUILDING, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI-110001.
DELHI
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Shri P N Mishra Sr Advocate with Mr. Jitender
Kumar Sahoo)
Page 3 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):
"a) direct the Respondent Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (DSIIDC Ltd.) to grant seniority to the Applicants in the cadre of J.E. (Civil) w.e.f. their initial appointments with consequential benefits;
(b) direct the Respondent Delhi St State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (DSIIDC Ltd.) to conclude & count the service of the Applicants in the cadre of J.E. (Civil) w.e.f. their date of initial appointments towards qualifying service for promotion to the next promotional nal post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) and grant all consequent benefits of service including arrears of pay and allowances;
(c) grant all consequential benefit to the Applicants to which they are entitled in law and pass such other or further order(s) der(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case"
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted as under:
2.1 The applicants were initially appointed as Technical Supervisors and later as Work Assistants on a muster roll basis between 1995 and 1998. On 15.04.1998, the respondents recognized the applicants as employees of the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC) for the purposes of seniority and regularization.
2.2 During the years 1999-2000, 1999 2000, the applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) on an ad-hoc/contractual ad hoc/contractual basis. Their terms and conditions Page 4 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 were at par with those of regular employees, and they discharged the same duties and responsibilities responsibilities as their regular counterparts.
2.3 In 2005, the applicants filed a writ petition [WP(C) Nos. 23570 23570-
23580/2005] before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi seeking regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointments. The said writ petition was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA Nos. 261-262/2009.
262/2009. The Tribunal allowed the applications on 08.07.2009, directing the regularization of the applicants. 2.4 The respondents challenged the order dated 08.07.2 08.07.2009 by filing W.P. (C) No. 14160/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court on 09.01.2013, directed the respondents to induct the applicants into the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). However, the respondents failed to comply with the he said direction and filed SLP against the regularization of the applicants. The said SLP was dismissed.
2.5 Despite the dismissal of the SLP, the respondents did not proceed to regularize the services of the applicants. It was only in December 2014 that the applicants were regularized in the pay scale of ₹9300-34800. However, no orders were passed regarding the counting of their past service for any purpose.
2.6 Learned counsel submitted that between between 2014 and 2017, the applicants were repeatedly assured by the respondents that their past contractual service would be counted for seniority and related benefits. However, no formal orders to this effect were issued. Page 5 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 2.7 Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants had remained on contractual appointments for approximately 14 years, and what they are now seeking is the benefit of this long period of service, followed by regularization, for the purposes of seniority and financial benefits.
2.8 In support of their claims, learned counsel for the applicants placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
Ors (2024 INSC 1034).
2.9. In the written submission filed on behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that the applicants were initially appointed as Work Assistants between 1995 and 1999, with their service treated as regular for seniority purposes, as per the order dated 15.04.1998. In October 2000, the applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers Engineers (Civil) on a contractual basis against clear vacancies meant for direct recruitment. Their service was treated as contractual only because they were directly appointed by DSIIDC, not due to any disqualification. Following a judgment from the Hon'ble H High Court of Delhi (09.01.2013) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (03.02.2014), their services were regularized, and the applicants now seek to have their entire service, from the date of initial appointment, counted for the purpose of seniority. The applicants assert that their services, once regularized as JE (Civil), should count from their initial appointment, as they performed the same duties and had statutory and financial powers as regular JEs. The applicants argue that wiping out this service would create administrative complications. The issue of counting service before Page 6 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 regularization for seniority purposes is supported by precedents, including a judgment from a coordinate bench (10.05.2022, OA No. 1427/2019), which held that long and uninterrupted uninterrupted service cannot be denied benefits post post-
regularization. This argument is also bolstered by other relevant judgments (OA No. 2658/2016 and WP(C) No.5429/1998). The applicants refute the respondents' reliance on the judgment in Rishi Mani Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (28.07.2021), (28.07.2021), stating that it actually supports their case. The ruling states that long-term long term adhoc appointments should not be treated as temporary or stopgap measures, which is applicable to the applicants' case. Furthermore, the rules cited in the case do not apply to the applicants, who do not face any rule denying seniority from the date of initial appointment. The he applicants contend that the Nand Kumari Manjhi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (2019) judgment is not applicable to thei their case, as granting seniority from the date of initial appointment would not adversely affect anyone. The position of JE (Civil) is filled 100% through promotion, and the legal landscape regarding the counting of service rendered on a contract/adhoc basis has evolved, particularly with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Jaggo case. The applicants highlight that they were not sporadic or project project-based workers, but rather permanent and integral members of the DSIIDC. They performed duties such as executing engineering engineering projects without any performance issues or adverse remarks throughout their tenure. Denying seniority for their contract period would amount to exploitation and undermine their long-term long term service entitlement. Additionally, there is no Page 7 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 distinction between etween the service rendered on a contractual basis and post post-
regularization service.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted as under:
3.1 The applicants were initially engaged as daily wagers and subsequently placed on the muster roll. Thereafter, they were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) on a contractual basis with effect from 04.10.2000 on a consolidated salary, pursuant to specific terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties.
3.2 Learned counsel strongly contended that the applicants never held any regular posts and that their engagements were purely temporary and non non-
statutory in nature. Furthermore, the appointments were not made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, nor through the prescribed process via the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), as mandated under Notification No. F.3(25)/97-S.II/Vol.1/42 F.3(25)/97 S.II/Vol.1/42 dated 08.01.1998 issued by the Government Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD).
3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the claims raised by the applicants have already been conclusively adjudicated in TA Nos. 261 and 262 of 2009 and in Review Petition No. 127/2014 in WP(C) No. 14160/2009. In those proceedings, proceedings, the Hon'ble Courts declined to grant any relief, and the applicants did not challenge those decisions further. Hence, the present Original Application is barred by the principles of res judicata. Page 8 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 3.4 It was further contended that regular appointmen appointments to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) are to be made strictly through direct recruitment conducted by the DSSSB. The applicants, despite having ample opportunity, did not participate in the said process. It was asserted that contractual appointees cannot ot claim parity with regular employees with regard to seniority, pay, or regularization, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in multiple decisions.
3.5 In support of the above contentions, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble H Supreme Court in Rashi Mani Mishra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10788 of 2016, decided on 28.07.2021.
3.6. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the applicants were initially engaged as daily wagers and subsequently on a muster roll basis, and later appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) purely on contractual terms terms w.e.f. 04.10.2000 on a consolidated salary, without adherence to statutory recruitment rules or the DSSSB process. It is contended that their appointment letters clearly denied any claim to regularization, seniority, or service benefits akin to regular employees. The Board of Directors of DSIIDC also resolved in 2004 that such contractual appointments were coterminous with specific projects. The respondents argue that the applicants' claim for seniority benefits based on contract service is barred by the th principles of res judicata judicata, as the matter was conclusively settled through TA Nos. 261 & 262 of 2009 and WP(C) No. 14160/2009, followed by Review Petition No. 127/2014. The Hon'ble High Page 9 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 Court permitted induction through appraisal by DSSSB or an appropria appropriate committee. Based on this, the applicants were regularized w.e.f. 08.12.2014 after selection. The respondents emphasize that seniority is to be counted only from the date of regularization, not from the date of contractual or ad hoc appointment, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rashi Mani Mishra (supra) and Nand Kumar Manjhi v. State of Bihar [(2019) 6 SCR 653].
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants' applicants submitted that the applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) against clear vacancies and discharged identical duties as regular JEs, and thus thus, are entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment. It was argued that the label of "contractual"
ual" cannot defeat their legitimate claim, especially when no difference existed in the nature of work.
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicants drew a distinction to the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in Rashi Mani Mishra (supra).. He submitted that the rule itself contemplated that no seniority will be accorded on regularization wherein in the present case there is no rule to deny the issue of seniority from the date of initial appointment. He relied upon para'10' of the Rashi Mani Mishra (supra), which reads as under:
"10. Similarly, the decision of this Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ad hoc appointees, also shall not be applicable to the facts of the ccase at hand. In the case before this Court, the promotees appointed on ad hoc were continued for fairly long periods, and their appointments were made after due consultation with, or approval of Service Commission, and therefore their appointments were held held not to be ad hoc or fortuitous or stopgap. It is to be noted that in the present case when the ad hoc Page 10 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 appointees were appointed in the year 1985, there was no consultationwith the UPSC and as such there was no recommendation by the UPSC. Their services came came to be regularised as per the 1979 Rules and after they were selected by the Selection Committee constituted under the 1979 Rules, which specifically provides that for the purpose of regularisation of ad hoc appointments, the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee and consultation with the Commission shall not be necessary. It is also to be noted that when the ad hoc appointees were appointed in the year 1985, they were appointed on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection C Committee constituted for ad hoc appointment(s) and when subsequently their services were regularised and they were appointed in the year 1989, they were appointed by the order of Governor. This is one additional ground to hold that their substantive appointments appointments can be said to be only from the date of their regularisation/appointment made in the year 1989 after their names were recommended by the Selection Committee constituted under the 1979 Rules and their services were regularised as per the 1979 Rules aafter following the procedure as required under the 1979 Rules, i.e., in the year 1989. Therefore, their seniority is to be counted only from 14.12.1989, the date of their regularisation and the services rendered by the ad hoc appointees prior thereto, i.e., i.e., from the date of their initial appointments in the year 1985 is not to be counted for the purpose of seniority, vis vis-à-vis, the direct recruits appointed prior to 1989."
4.2 Learned counsel for the applicants also drew a reference to the office order dated 15.04.1998, issued by Office of MD, DSIDC which reads as under:
"14 Technical Supervisor on contract basis are being ΜΟΙ repeatedly representing to me for their regularisation. had also spoken to me in this regard couple of weeks back. Technically, tthese Supervisors have been engaged by the Works Division on Contract basis against deposit works. have no legitimate claim for regularisation While they in the Corporation The act that they have been employed without break for period, exceeding a year necessitates necessitates genuine human consideration as all these officials are qualified for being Since the Works Division is continuing their Jr. Engineer. services without break, it is directed that they should be. deemed as being employed by the Corporation on Muster Roll from the date of their initial appointment for seniority However, the wages which are payable to Muster, purposes. Roll employees in similar capacities shall be paid to them only from the date of this order. Thiw will give there a fair chance of being being considered for regularization as per extent rules and availability of vacancies from time to time."
4.3 Learned counsel for the applicants also relied upon the decision rendered by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.330/01427/2018 dated 10.05.2022 05.2022 in the case of Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan and Ors. vs. Page 11 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 Union of India and Anr.
Anr. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced herein below:
"8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length on two occasions and also carefully gone through the documents on record. In my view, since the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has examined each and every aspect of the case and rendered a detailed judgment as mentioned above, I have little reason or so for any divergence. The applicants may have been appointed as Short Term Medical Officers (STMOs) and not Assistant Medical Officers, but the fact remains that this is only a technical distinction in the nomenclature and they we were appointed for all intents and purposes as Medical Officers to discharge the duties and responsibilities as are envisaged for a Medical Officer.
Moreover, they were recruited / appointed in accordance with a scheme framed by the respondents and after goi going through the process of selection as set out in the said scheme, therefore by no stretch of imagination can their appointment be termed as irregular. If at all any irregularity is to be assigned to their engagement / recruitment, the responsibility of the the same shall squarely lie with the respondents as they had the relevant recruitment rules at the given point of time and could have resorted to regular appointment instead of Short Term Medical Officers. Moreover, once there claim of regularization stands accepted, there is little justification for denying them the benefit of the long years of uninterrupted service they have put in as Medical Officers till the date of their regularization which is 16.09.2015. In fact, the precious years of their life in the service of the respondents would get washed away if such a benefit was denied to them. Moreover, by their own admission, the respondents have extended benefit of the past service with effect from the date of first appointment to other similarly placed STM STMOs and therefore denying the same to the present applicants would surely be termed as discriminatory. While the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents do have strong legal merit that the initial appointment was not in accordance with the statutory statutory recruitment rules and hence benefit cannot be accorded, it falls in the face of justice If the applicants are eligible and fit to be appointed as regular Assistant Medical Officers on 16.09.2015, the logical presumption is that they were eligible tto hold this position as such on the first date of appointment. Such a situation would not have arisenhad the respondents made regular appointment under the recruitment rules or strictly adhered to the objectives and spirit of the scheme for appointment of Short Term Medical Officers and terminated their services after a period of six months as set out in the scheme and not continued to extend it from time to time thus running into several years. The nomenclature of the appointment may have been short term aand ad hoc, but the actual character of their appointment was regular, the breaks in between being merely technical and artificial in nature.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the present original application is allowed with a ddirection to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to issue orders forthwith, in any case not later than a period of twelve weeks from the date of this Order, giving appointment to the applicants as regular Assistant Medical Officers with effect from from the date on which they were initially appointed as Short Term Medical Officers."
Page 12 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 4.4 Learned counsel for the applicant further drew a reference to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.5429/1998 dated 13.07.2010 in the case c of Om Prakash Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant para of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"9. We are of the view that the impugned judgement deserves to be set aside and the contentions raised raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are correct. In our opinion, there are two basic issues which, if addressed, would result in the impugned order being set aside and the present petition being allowed:
i. The first issue is that the judgement date dated 4.3.1994 inter parties whereby the appointment of the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. the date of their respective dates of original appointments is not an issue whose finality can be challenged in any manner.
This judgment, admittedly became final, and there was no challenge to this judgement either by the private respondents herein or by the Union of India, who were parties to the said judgement. Further, in our opinion, when the order dated 31.10.1995 asked the Union of India to consider the representations representations of the private respondents herein it cannot be said that by that judgement the finality of the judgement dated 4.3.1994 could at all have been affected. Neither does the judgement dated 31.10.1995 reflects so nor can any law permits a Co Co-ordinate Bench of CAT in collateral proceedings to set aside an earlier binding judgement given by a different Bench earlier of the same Tribunal. Thus, both the respondent No.3 as also CAT in the impugned judgement, has fallen into a grave error by holding that by the order of the Tribunal dated 30.11.1995 gates have been opened for review of a provisional seniority list by ignoring the first judgement dated 4.3.1994. By observing so it is quite clear that without using the technical expression res judicata, resp respondent No.3 and CAT by the impugned judgement are in effect diluting and affecting the finality of the principle of res judicata qua the judgement dated 4.3.1994. The findings and observations of the Tribunal in the impugned judgement are, therefore, totaltotally against the record and the facts of the case and are, therefore, set aside. In our opinion, there is no reason to hold that the finality of the judgement dated 4.3.1994 has been in any manner affected by the subsequent judgement dated 31.10.1995 of the Tribunal, and therefore, it was not permissible for the Tribunal by the impugned judgement to hold so.
ii. The second basic issue is that the subject rule, as already reproduced above, does not require that the examination should be conducted by the UPSC. Not only this, the counsels appearing both for the Union of India and the private respondents have failed to show us any pleading either in this Court or before the Tribunal that the examination conducted by respondent No.2 herein can be said to be violatviolative of the Rules because the examination, in fact, ought to have been conducted by the UPSC and not by respondent No.2 herein. It needs to be borne in mind at this stage that the labeling of the appointments of the petitioners as ad Page 13 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 hoc cannot be strictly said to be a pick and choose method because the appointments of the petitioners was through regular All India Examination and they were appointed after interviews were conducted and their having cleared the medical examination. Further, the requirement of the Rule was not with regard to any "prior" consultation with the UPSC but only consultation with the UPSC. It is for this reason that the operative portion of the first order dated 4.3.1994 directed regularization of the appointments of the petitioners, ssubject to consultation" with the UPSC, UPSC has not denied the benefit to the petitioners for regularization in employment from the dates of their initial appointment, being fully in the know of the fact that only a consultation process with the UPSC was not not carried out there being no requirement of prior" consultation. UPSC cannot be said to have given retrospective appointments" as per its actions because UPSC was only acting in accordance with the mandate of the judgement of the CAT dated 4.3.1994 and as per Rules."
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. We have also referred to the case laws cited by the respective parties.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 The moot question before us is whether the past service rendered by an employee in a contractual capacity can be counted for the purpose of seniority after regularization within the same organization.
6.2. The answer to the said query hinges on two key considerations: whether the applicants were regularized under any prevailing scheme or policy of the organization, and whether there exists any rule or regulation explicitly barring the counting of past service rendered prior to regularization for the purpose ose of seniority.
6.3 The service conditions of a regularized employee are governed by the applicable rules and the instructions issued by the Government of India or the organization concerned from time to time. In the present case, no rule, Page 14 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 policy, or instruction nstruction has been placed on record to indicate that any such provision was ever in existence which prohibits the counting of past contractual service for the purpose of seniority. Nor has any precedent to that effect been cited.
6.4 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 49 of 2022 - C. Yamini & Others vs. The High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi & Anr Anr., decided on 23.02.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that services rendered on an ad hoc basis as a Judicial Officer cannot be be counted for the purpose of seniority. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"7. The question which has been raised in the instant petition at the instance of the present petitioners has been examined by this Court in Kum C. Yamini Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Anr.(Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019 decided on 14th August, 2019) wherein the three threeJudge Bench of this Court, after examining their nature of appointment as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track on ad adhoc basis under the Rules, 2001 and later appointed by Order dated 2nd July, 2013 on regular basis and becoming members of the Rules, 2007 held that the petitioners are not entitled to claim benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track and other consequential reliefs prayed for. At the same time, limited benefit of service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges was granted to them only for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits. The relevant part is as under:-
under:
"14......The ......The claim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per which the appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to the cadre posts or not etc. When the appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the A.P. Judicial Service, appellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hoc appointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. We are of the view that the ratio decided in the said judgments relied on by the appellants would not render any assistance in support of their case."
"17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are in agreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench of this Court.
Resultantly, while rejecting their claim for grant of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as FastTrack Court District Judges and other reliefs, we direct that the appellants and all others who are similarly placed are to be given benefit of counting Page 15 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 their service rendered as Fast Track Judges, for the purpose of pensionary nary and other retiral benefits."
8. Since the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized by this Court for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retiral benefits, the plea raised by the petitioners itioners to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution, in light of the judgment of this Court what being prayed for, is not legally sustainable."
sustainable.
6.5 In a recent nt decision in Civil Appeal No. 4356 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2793 of 2023 - The Secretary to Government, Department of Health & Family Welfare & Anr. vs. K.C. Devaki Devaki, decided on 25.03.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"2. Does the transfer or reappointment of a government employee from one post to another impact his/her seniority in the new post, and if so, is such seniority contingent upon whether the transfer was made in the public interest or at the employee's own request?" it wawas observed as follows:
3. The fundamental principle underlying the relationship between the State and its employee is that it is governed by administrative rules, rather than contractual agreements. In view of the power of the State to modify the terms and conditions of services by unilaterally amending the Rules, this kind of employment is defined as status.1 Therefore, when grievance of an employee is brought to a Court or a Tribunal, the primary question is about the Rule that governs the services. At th this stage there is no value judgment about the executive action, unless of course when the Rule itself is challenged on the ground of invalidity or arbitrariness. So, we simply look at the Rule that governs the services and determine whether the action is in in consonance with the mandate of the Rule.
24. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in directing the appellant to grant seniority to the respondent in the cadre of First Division Assist Assistant with effect from the date on which the said respondent has entered service in the cadre of Staff Nurse from 05.01.1979, instead of 19.04.1989, when she was appointed in the new cadre of First Division Assistant.
25. For the reasons stated above, we allow allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 25.10.
25.10.2021 in W.P. No. 42244 of 2019."
6.6 The earlier practice of determining relative seniority based on the date of confirmation--rather confirmation rather than the original order of merit at the time of appointment (in cases where the order of confirmation differed from the Page 16 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 original merit list)--has list) been discontinued ed with effect from 04.11.1992.
Accordingly, the general principles of seniority stand modified to that extent. [Ref: Para 2.1 of O.M. No. 22011/7/86 22011/7/86-Estt.(D) dated 03.07.1986 and Para 3 of O.M. No. 20011/5/90-Estt.(D) 20011/5/90 Estt.(D) dated 04.11.1992.] 6.7 The regularization regularization was granted pursuant to compliance with directions issued by the Court or Tribunal, which thereafter initiated the process of regularization. The applicants could have asserted their claim for regularization earlier, but such claims were neither press pressed nor allowed at the relevant time. The terms "recruitment" and "appointment" must be construed harmoniously, and seniority is to be determined based on the actual date of appointment, not the initiation of the recruitment process. Accordingly, the year of of recruitment should coincide with the year of appointment, and appointees are entitled to seniority only from that year. 6.8 It is also to be noted that the the applicants neither belonged to the original cadre nor were they treated as fresh entrants after regularization, nor should the seniority of already absorbed employees be disturbed as contended by the applicants. Consequently, the crucial date for determining seniority is the date of regularization and not the date of initial contractual employment. We We find no merit in the applicants' claim for seniority vis vis-à-vis candidates appointed through regular recruitment under the applicable Recruitment Rules prior to their regularization. 6.9 Moreover, a considerable period has elapsed since the relevant appointments, ntments, and granting retrospective seniority at this stage would open Page 17 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 the floodgates of litigation and disrupt the seniority of numerous employees, causing them significant prejudice and grievance. Such a change would unsettle the settled and crystallized rights relating to seniority, rank, and promotion that employees have acquired over the intervening period. Altering the seniority list after such a long time would be manifestly unjust to the many employees who would be caught in uncertainty through no ffault of their own, thereby resulting in a retrospective loss of seniority rights.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1 In view of the above analysis, we do not not find any merit in the present Original Application, therefore, the same is dismissed accordingly.
7.2. Pending M.A.s, M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No Costs.
Dr. Anand S Khati Manish Garg
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 18 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017
Central Administrative
Tribunal Principal Bench, New
Delhi
O.A. No. 2028/2017
Reserved on: 23.07.2025
Pronounced on: 07.08.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member(A)
1. MR. JAIDEV SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 44 YEARS, S/O SH. R.D.
SHARMA, R/O C-13/114,
C 13/114, SECTOR
SECTOR-3,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
DELHI
2. MR. S.K. CHAUDHARY JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 49 YEARS, S/O SH.
RAMRUP CHAUDHARY, R/O B-3/141,
B 3/141,
SECTOR ROHINI,DELHI-110085.
SECTOR-6, 110085.
3. MR. SURENDER KUMAR JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 48 YEARS, S/O SH. RAM
KUMAR, R/0 316, VILLAGE & P.O.
KUTUB GARH, DELHI-110039.
DELHI
4. MR. GOPI RAM JUNIOR ENGINEER
AGE 43 YEARS, S/O SH. PARSHURAM,
R/O H.NO.21, VILLAGE MUKUNDPUR,
NEAR MCD PRIMARY SCHOOL, DELHI-
110042.
5. MR. AJAY AGGARWAL JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 47 YEARS, S/O SH. R.P.
AGGARWAL, R/O H-3/56,
H 3/56, SECTOR
SECTOR-11,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
DELHI
6. MR. RAKESH NAIN JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 43 YEARS, S/O LATE SH.
ATTAR SINGH, R/O FLAT NO.32, PLOT
NO.6, SHRI HARI APARTMENT,
APARTMENT, SECTOR
SECTOR-
12, DWARKA, DELHI.
Page 1 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017
7. MR. NARESH KUMAR JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 45 YEARS,S/O LATE SH.
OM PRAKASH, R/O H-19/19
H 19/19 1ST FLOOR,
SECTOR ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
SECTOR-7, 110085.
8. MR. SHYAM LAL JUNIOR ENGINEER
AGE 47 YEARS, S/O SH. JEESUKH
PRASAD, R/O HIMALAYA APARTMENT,
FLAT NO.112, РОСКЕТ-А,
РОСКЕТ А, SECTOR
SECTOR-2,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
DELHI
9. MR. SUBHASH SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 52 YEARS, S/O SH.
SURESH CHANDRA, R/0 1208, PANNA
PAPOSIYA, NARELA, DELHI.
10. MR. DHARMA DUTT SHARMA
JUNIOR ENGINEER, AGE 47 YEARS, S/O
LATE SH. VIDYA NAND SHARMA, R/O
M-7/D
7/D-11,
11, JULEYLAL APARTMENT,
PITAM PURA, DELHI.
11. MR. ATUL SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 47 YEARS S/O SH. R.N.
SHARMA, R/O A-173,
A 173, MEERA BAGH,
NEW DELHI.
12. MR. ARUN KUMAR JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 45 YEARS, S/O SH.
VASU DEV, R/O H.NO.96, VILLAGE &
POST OFFICE, GURUKUL DAURILL
MEERUT.
13. MR. VIPIN SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 39 YEARS, S/O SH. R.D.
SHARMA, R/O C-10/35,
C 10/35, YAMUNA VIHAR,
DELHI
DELHI-53.
14. MR. SUNIL DABAS JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 47 YEARS, S/O SH. JAI
SINGH DABAS R/O FLAT NO.55,
POCKET SECTOR-23,
POCKET-I, 23, ROHINI, DELHI
DELHI-
110085.
Page 2 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017
15. MR. DHIRENDER KUMAR JUNIOR
ENGINEER, AGE 46 YEARS, S/O SH.
SAHIB SINGH, R/0 97, VAISHALI,
PITAMPURA, DELHI-110088.
DELHI
16. MR. VIKAS SHARMA JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 40 YEARS, S/O SH. P.N.
SHARMA R/O 27/78, GALI NO.8,VISWAS
NAGAR, SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032.
110032.
17. MR. RAVINDER SIROHI JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 44 YEARS, S/O SH.
DESHPAL, R/0 25, BLOCK-A,
BLOCK A, VILLAGE
RAJPUR KHURD COLONY, MEHRAULI,
P.O. MAIDAN GARHI, NEAR
CHATARPUR MANDIR, DELHI.
18. MR. DINESH CHAND JUNIOR
ENGINEER AGE 50 YEARS, S/OS/O LATE SH.
B.P. SHARMA, R/O C-79-A,
C A, JITAR NAGAR,
NEW PIRWANA ROAD, DELHI-110051.
DELHI 110051.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M K Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD (DSIIDC LTD.)
THROUGH IT'S MANAGING
DIRECTOR, N-36,
N BOMBAY LIFE
BUILDING, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI-110001.
DELHI
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Shri P N Mishra Sr Advocate with Mr. Jitender Kumar Sahoo) Page 3 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 ORDER Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):
"a) direct the Respondent Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (DSIIDC Ltd.) to grant seniority to the Applicants in the cadre of J.E. (Civil) w.e.f. their initial appointments with consequential benefits;
(b) direct the Respondent Delhi St State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (DSIIDC Ltd.) to conclude & count the service of the Applicants in the cadre of J.E. (Civil) w.e.f. their date of initial appointments towards qualifying service for promotion to the next promotional nal post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) and grant all consequent benefits of service including arrears of pay and allowances;
(c) grant all consequential benefit to the Applicants to which they are entitled in law and pass such other or further order(s) der(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case"
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted as under:
2.1 The applicants were initially appointed as Technical Supervisors and later as Work Assistants on a muster roll basis between 1995 and 1998. On 15.04.1998, the respondents recognized the applicants as employees of the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC) for the purposes of seniority and regularization.
2.2 During the years 1999-2000, 1999 2000, the applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) on an ad-hoc/contractual ad hoc/contractual basis. Their terms and conditions Page 4 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 were at par with those of regular employees, and they discharged the same duties and responsibilities responsibilities as their regular counterparts.
2.3 In 2005, the applicants filed a writ petition [WP(C) Nos. 23570 23570-
23580/2005] before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi seeking regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointments. The said writ petition was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA Nos. 261-262/2009.
262/2009. The Tribunal allowed the applications on 08.07.2009, directing the regularization of the applicants. 2.4 The respondents challenged the order dated 08.07.2 08.07.2009 by filing W.P. (C) No. 14160/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court on 09.01.2013, directed the respondents to induct the applicants into the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). However, the respondents failed to comply with the he said direction and filed SLP against the regularization of the applicants. The said SLP was dismissed.
2.5 Despite the dismissal of the SLP, the respondents did not proceed to regularize the services of the applicants. It was only in December 2014 that the applicants were regularized in the pay scale of ₹9300-34800. However, no orders were passed regarding the counting of their past service for any purpose.
2.6 Learned counsel submitted that between between 2014 and 2017, the applicants were repeatedly assured by the respondents that their past contractual service would be counted for seniority and related benefits. However, no formal orders to this effect were issued. Page 5 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 2.7 Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants had remained on contractual appointments for approximately 14 years, and what they are now seeking is the benefit of this long period of service, followed by regularization, for the purposes of seniority and financial benefits.
2.8 In support of their claims, learned counsel for the applicants placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
Ors (2024 INSC 1034).
2.9. In the written submission filed on behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that the applicants were initially appointed as Work Assistants between 1995 and 1999, with their service treated as regular for seniority purposes, as per the order dated 15.04.1998. In October 2000, the applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers Engineers (Civil) on a contractual basis against clear vacancies meant for direct recruitment. Their service was treated as contractual only because they were directly appointed by DSIIDC, not due to any disqualification. Following a judgment from the Hon'ble H High Court of Delhi (09.01.2013) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (03.02.2014), their services were regularized, and the applicants now seek to have their entire service, from the date of initial appointment, counted for the purpose of seniority. The applicants assert that their services, once regularized as JE (Civil), should count from their initial appointment, as they performed the same duties and had statutory and financial powers as regular JEs. The applicants argue that wiping out this service would create administrative complications. The issue of counting service before Page 6 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 regularization for seniority purposes is supported by precedents, including a judgment from a coordinate bench (10.05.2022, OA No. 1427/2019), which held that long and uninterrupted uninterrupted service cannot be denied benefits post post-
regularization. This argument is also bolstered by other relevant judgments (OA No. 2658/2016 and WP(C) No.5429/1998). The applicants refute the respondents' reliance on the judgment in Rishi Mani Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (28.07.2021), (28.07.2021), stating that it actually supports their case. The ruling states that long-term long term adhoc appointments should not be treated as temporary or stopgap measures, which is applicable to the applicants' case. Furthermore, the rules cited in the case do not apply to the applicants, who do not face any rule denying seniority from the date of initial appointment. The he applicants contend that the Nand Kumari Manjhi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (2019) judgment is not applicable to thei their case, as granting seniority from the date of initial appointment would not adversely affect anyone. The position of JE (Civil) is filled 100% through promotion, and the legal landscape regarding the counting of service rendered on a contract/adhoc basis has evolved, particularly with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Jaggo case. The applicants highlight that they were not sporadic or project project-based workers, but rather permanent and integral members of the DSIIDC. They performed duties such as executing engineering engineering projects without any performance issues or adverse remarks throughout their tenure. Denying seniority for their contract period would amount to exploitation and undermine their long-term long term service entitlement. Additionally, there is no Page 7 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 distinction between etween the service rendered on a contractual basis and post post-
regularization service.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted as under:
3.1 The applicants were initially engaged as daily wagers and subsequently placed on the muster roll. Thereafter, they were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) on a contractual basis with effect from 04.10.2000 on a consolidated salary, pursuant to specific terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties.
3.2 Learned counsel strongly contended that the applicants never held any regular posts and that their engagements were purely temporary and non non-
statutory in nature. Furthermore, the appointments were not made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, nor through the prescribed process via the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), as mandated under Notification No. F.3(25)/97-S.II/Vol.1/42 F.3(25)/97 S.II/Vol.1/42 dated 08.01.1998 issued by the Government Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD).
3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the claims raised by the applicants have already been conclusively adjudicated in TA Nos. 261 and 262 of 2009 and in Review Petition No. 127/2014 in WP(C) No. 14160/2009. In those proceedings, proceedings, the Hon'ble Courts declined to grant any relief, and the applicants did not challenge those decisions further. Hence, the present Original Application is barred by the principles of res judicata. Page 8 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 3.4 It was further contended that regular appointmen appointments to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) are to be made strictly through direct recruitment conducted by the DSSSB. The applicants, despite having ample opportunity, did not participate in the said process. It was asserted that contractual appointees cannot ot claim parity with regular employees with regard to seniority, pay, or regularization, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in multiple decisions.
3.5 In support of the above contentions, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble H Supreme Court in Rashi Mani Mishra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10788 of 2016, decided on 28.07.2021.
3.6. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the applicants were initially engaged as daily wagers and subsequently on a muster roll basis, and later appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) purely on contractual terms terms w.e.f. 04.10.2000 on a consolidated salary, without adherence to statutory recruitment rules or the DSSSB process. It is contended that their appointment letters clearly denied any claim to regularization, seniority, or service benefits akin to regular employees. The Board of Directors of DSIIDC also resolved in 2004 that such contractual appointments were coterminous with specific projects. The respondents argue that the applicants' claim for seniority benefits based on contract service is barred by the th principles of res judicata judicata, as the matter was conclusively settled through TA Nos. 261 & 262 of 2009 and WP(C) No. 14160/2009, followed by Review Petition No. 127/2014. The Hon'ble High Page 9 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 Court permitted induction through appraisal by DSSSB or an appropria appropriate committee. Based on this, the applicants were regularized w.e.f. 08.12.2014 after selection. The respondents emphasize that seniority is to be counted only from the date of regularization, not from the date of contractual or ad hoc appointment, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rashi Mani Mishra (supra) and Nand Kumar Manjhi v. State of Bihar [(2019) 6 SCR 653].
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants' applicants submitted that the applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) against clear vacancies and discharged identical duties as regular JEs, and thus thus, are entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment. It was argued that the label of "contractual"
ual" cannot defeat their legitimate claim, especially when no difference existed in the nature of work.
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicants drew a distinction to the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in Rashi Mani Mishra (supra).. He submitted that the rule itself contemplated that no seniority will be accorded on regularization wherein in the present case there is no rule to deny the issue of seniority from the date of initial appointment. He relied upon para'10' of the Rashi Mani Mishra (supra), which reads as under:
"10. Similarly, the decision of this Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ad hoc appointees, also shall not be applicable to the facts of the ccase at hand. In the case before this Court, the promotees appointed on ad hoc were continued for fairly long periods, and their appointments were made after due consultation with, or approval of Service Commission, and therefore their appointments were held held not to be ad hoc or fortuitous or stopgap. It is to be noted that in the present case when the ad hoc Page 10 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 appointees were appointed in the year 1985, there was no consultationwith the UPSC and as such there was no recommendation by the UPSC. Their services came came to be regularised as per the 1979 Rules and after they were selected by the Selection Committee constituted under the 1979 Rules, which specifically provides that for the purpose of regularisation of ad hoc appointments, the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee and consultation with the Commission shall not be necessary. It is also to be noted that when the ad hoc appointees were appointed in the year 1985, they were appointed on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection C Committee constituted for ad hoc appointment(s) and when subsequently their services were regularised and they were appointed in the year 1989, they were appointed by the order of Governor. This is one additional ground to hold that their substantive appointments appointments can be said to be only from the date of their regularisation/appointment made in the year 1989 after their names were recommended by the Selection Committee constituted under the 1979 Rules and their services were regularised as per the 1979 Rules aafter following the procedure as required under the 1979 Rules, i.e., in the year 1989. Therefore, their seniority is to be counted only from 14.12.1989, the date of their regularisation and the services rendered by the ad hoc appointees prior thereto, i.e., i.e., from the date of their initial appointments in the year 1985 is not to be counted for the purpose of seniority, vis vis-à-vis, the direct recruits appointed prior to 1989."
4.2 Learned counsel for the applicants also drew a reference to the office order dated 15.04.1998, issued by Office of MD, DSIDC which reads as under:
"14 Technical Supervisor on contract basis are being ΜΟΙ repeatedly representing to me for their regularisation. had also spoken to me in this regard couple of weeks back. Technically, tthese Supervisors have been engaged by the Works Division on Contract basis against deposit works. have no legitimate claim for regularisation While they in the Corporation The act that they have been employed without break for period, exceeding a year necessitates necessitates genuine human consideration as all these officials are qualified for being Since the Works Division is continuing their Jr. Engineer. services without break, it is directed that they should be. deemed as being employed by the Corporation on Muster Roll from the date of their initial appointment for seniority However, the wages which are payable to Muster, purposes. Roll employees in similar capacities shall be paid to them only from the date of this order. Thiw will give there a fair chance of being being considered for regularization as per extent rules and availability of vacancies from time to time."
4.3 Learned counsel for the applicants also relied upon the decision rendered by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.330/01427/2018 dated 10.05.2022 05.2022 in the case of Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan and Ors. vs. Page 11 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 Union of India and Anr.
Anr. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced herein below:
"8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length on two occasions and also carefully gone through the documents on record. In my view, since the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has examined each and every aspect of the case and rendered a detailed judgment as mentioned above, I have little reason or so for any divergence. The applicants may have been appointed as Short Term Medical Officers (STMOs) and not Assistant Medical Officers, but the fact remains that this is only a technical distinction in the nomenclature and they we were appointed for all intents and purposes as Medical Officers to discharge the duties and responsibilities as are envisaged for a Medical Officer.
Moreover, they were recruited / appointed in accordance with a scheme framed by the respondents and after goi going through the process of selection as set out in the said scheme, therefore by no stretch of imagination can their appointment be termed as irregular. If at all any irregularity is to be assigned to their engagement / recruitment, the responsibility of the the same shall squarely lie with the respondents as they had the relevant recruitment rules at the given point of time and could have resorted to regular appointment instead of Short Term Medical Officers. Moreover, once there claim of regularization stands accepted, there is little justification for denying them the benefit of the long years of uninterrupted service they have put in as Medical Officers till the date of their regularization which is 16.09.2015. In fact, the precious years of their life in the service of the respondents would get washed away if such a benefit was denied to them. Moreover, by their own admission, the respondents have extended benefit of the past service with effect from the date of first appointment to other similarly placed STM STMOs and therefore denying the same to the present applicants would surely be termed as discriminatory. While the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents do have strong legal merit that the initial appointment was not in accordance with the statutory statutory recruitment rules and hence benefit cannot be accorded, it falls in the face of justice If the applicants are eligible and fit to be appointed as regular Assistant Medical Officers on 16.09.2015, the logical presumption is that they were eligible tto hold this position as such on the first date of appointment. Such a situation would not have arisenhad the respondents made regular appointment under the recruitment rules or strictly adhered to the objectives and spirit of the scheme for appointment of Short Term Medical Officers and terminated their services after a period of six months as set out in the scheme and not continued to extend it from time to time thus running into several years. The nomenclature of the appointment may have been short term aand ad hoc, but the actual character of their appointment was regular, the breaks in between being merely technical and artificial in nature.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the present original application is allowed with a ddirection to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to issue orders forthwith, in any case not later than a period of twelve weeks from the date of this Order, giving appointment to the applicants as regular Assistant Medical Officers with effect from from the date on which they were initially appointed as Short Term Medical Officers."
Page 12 of 18
Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 4.4 Learned counsel for the applicant further drew a reference to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.5429/1998 dated 13.07.2010 in the case c of Om Prakash Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant para of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"9. We are of the view that the impugned judgement deserves to be set aside and the contentions raised raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are correct. In our opinion, there are two basic issues which, if addressed, would result in the impugned order being set aside and the present petition being allowed:
i. The first issue is that the judgement date dated 4.3.1994 inter parties whereby the appointment of the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. the date of their respective dates of original appointments is not an issue whose finality can be challenged in any manner.
This judgment, admittedly became final, and there was no challenge to this judgement either by the private respondents herein or by the Union of India, who were parties to the said judgement. Further, in our opinion, when the order dated 31.10.1995 asked the Union of India to consider the representations representations of the private respondents herein it cannot be said that by that judgement the finality of the judgement dated 4.3.1994 could at all have been affected. Neither does the judgement dated 31.10.1995 reflects so nor can any law permits a Co Co-ordinate Bench of CAT in collateral proceedings to set aside an earlier binding judgement given by a different Bench earlier of the same Tribunal. Thus, both the respondent No.3 as also CAT in the impugned judgement, has fallen into a grave error by holding that by the order of the Tribunal dated 30.11.1995 gates have been opened for review of a provisional seniority list by ignoring the first judgement dated 4.3.1994. By observing so it is quite clear that without using the technical expression res judicata, resp respondent No.3 and CAT by the impugned judgement are in effect diluting and affecting the finality of the principle of res judicata qua the judgement dated 4.3.1994. The findings and observations of the Tribunal in the impugned judgement are, therefore, totaltotally against the record and the facts of the case and are, therefore, set aside. In our opinion, there is no reason to hold that the finality of the judgement dated 4.3.1994 has been in any manner affected by the subsequent judgement dated 31.10.1995 of the Tribunal, and therefore, it was not permissible for the Tribunal by the impugned judgement to hold so.
ii. The second basic issue is that the subject rule, as already reproduced above, does not require that the examination should be conducted by the UPSC. Not only this, the counsels appearing both for the Union of India and the private respondents have failed to show us any pleading either in this Court or before the Tribunal that the examination conducted by respondent No.2 herein can be said to be violatviolative of the Rules because the examination, in fact, ought to have been conducted by the UPSC and not by respondent No.2 herein. It needs to be borne in mind at this stage that the labeling of the appointments of the petitioners as ad Page 13 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 hoc cannot be strictly said to be a pick and choose method because the appointments of the petitioners was through regular All India Examination and they were appointed after interviews were conducted and their having cleared the medical examination. Further, the requirement of the Rule was not with regard to any "prior" consultation with the UPSC but only consultation with the UPSC. It is for this reason that the operative portion of the first order dated 4.3.1994 directed regularization of the appointments of the petitioners, ssubject to consultation" with the UPSC, UPSC has not denied the benefit to the petitioners for regularization in employment from the dates of their initial appointment, being fully in the know of the fact that only a consultation process with the UPSC was not not carried out there being no requirement of prior" consultation. UPSC cannot be said to have given retrospective appointments" as per its actions because UPSC was only acting in accordance with the mandate of the judgement of the CAT dated 4.3.1994 and as per Rules."
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. We have also referred to the case laws cited by the respective parties.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 The moot question before us is whether the past service rendered by an employee in a contractual capacity can be counted for the purpose of seniority after regularization within the same organization.
6.2. The answer to the said query hinges on two key considerations: whether the applicants were regularized under any prevailing scheme or policy of the organization, and whether there exists any rule or regulation explicitly barring the counting of past service rendered prior to regularization for the purpose ose of seniority.
6.3 The service conditions of a regularized employee are governed by the applicable rules and the instructions issued by the Government of India or the organization concerned from time to time. In the present case, no rule, Page 14 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 policy, or instruction nstruction has been placed on record to indicate that any such provision was ever in existence which prohibits the counting of past contractual service for the purpose of seniority. Nor has any precedent to that effect been cited.
6.4 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 49 of 2022 - C. Yamini & Others vs. The High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi & Anr Anr., decided on 23.02.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that services rendered on an ad hoc basis as a Judicial Officer cannot be be counted for the purpose of seniority. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"7. The question which has been raised in the instant petition at the instance of the present petitioners has been examined by this Court in Kum C. Yamini Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Anr.(Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019 decided on 14th August, 2019) wherein the three threeJudge Bench of this Court, after examining their nature of appointment as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track on ad adhoc basis under the Rules, 2001 and later appointed by Order dated 2nd July, 2013 on regular basis and becoming members of the Rules, 2007 held that the petitioners are not entitled to claim benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track and other consequential reliefs prayed for. At the same time, limited benefit of service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges was granted to them only for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits. The relevant part is as under:-
under:
"14......The ......The claim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per which the appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to the cadre posts or not etc. When the appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the A.P. Judicial Service, appellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hoc appointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. We are of the view that the ratio decided in the said judgments relied on by the appellants would not render any assistance in support of their case."
"17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are in agreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench of this Court.
Resultantly, while rejecting their claim for grant of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as FastTrack Court District Judges and other reliefs, we direct that the appellants and all others who are similarly placed are to be given benefit of counting Page 15 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 their service rendered as Fast Track Judges, for the purpose of pensionary nary and other retiral benefits."
8. Since the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized by this Court for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retiral benefits, the plea raised by the petitioners itioners to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution, in light of the judgment of this Court what being prayed for, is not legally sustainable."
sustainable.
6.5 In a recent nt decision in Civil Appeal No. 4356 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2793 of 2023 - The Secretary to Government, Department of Health & Family Welfare & Anr. vs. K.C. Devaki Devaki, decided on 25.03.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"2. Does the transfer or reappointment of a government employee from one post to another impact his/her seniority in the new post, and if so, is such seniority contingent upon whether the transfer was made in the public interest or at the employee's own request?" it wawas observed as follows:
3. The fundamental principle underlying the relationship between the State and its employee is that it is governed by administrative rules, rather than contractual agreements. In view of the power of the State to modify the terms and conditions of services by unilaterally amending the Rules, this kind of employment is defined as status.1 Therefore, when grievance of an employee is brought to a Court or a Tribunal, the primary question is about the Rule that governs the services. At th this stage there is no value judgment about the executive action, unless of course when the Rule itself is challenged on the ground of invalidity or arbitrariness. So, we simply look at the Rule that governs the services and determine whether the action is in in consonance with the mandate of the Rule.
24. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in directing the appellant to grant seniority to the respondent in the cadre of First Division Assist Assistant with effect from the date on which the said respondent has entered service in the cadre of Staff Nurse from 05.01.1979, instead of 19.04.1989, when she was appointed in the new cadre of First Division Assistant.
25. For the reasons stated above, we allow allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 25.10.
25.10.2021 in W.P. No. 42244 of 2019."
6.6 The earlier practice of determining relative seniority based on the date of confirmation--rather confirmation rather than the original order of merit at the time of appointment (in cases where the order of confirmation differed from the Page 16 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 original merit list)--has list) been discontinued ed with effect from 04.11.1992.
Accordingly, the general principles of seniority stand modified to that extent. [Ref: Para 2.1 of O.M. No. 22011/7/86 22011/7/86-Estt.(D) dated 03.07.1986 and Para 3 of O.M. No. 20011/5/90-Estt.(D) 20011/5/90 Estt.(D) dated 04.11.1992.] 6.7 The regularization regularization was granted pursuant to compliance with directions issued by the Court or Tribunal, which thereafter initiated the process of regularization. The applicants could have asserted their claim for regularization earlier, but such claims were neither press pressed nor allowed at the relevant time. The terms "recruitment" and "appointment" must be construed harmoniously, and seniority is to be determined based on the actual date of appointment, not the initiation of the recruitment process. Accordingly, the year of of recruitment should coincide with the year of appointment, and appointees are entitled to seniority only from that year. 6.8 It is also to be noted that the the applicants neither belonged to the original cadre nor were they treated as fresh entrants after regularization, nor should the seniority of already absorbed employees be disturbed as contended by the applicants. Consequently, the crucial date for determining seniority is the date of regularization and not the date of initial contractual employment. We We find no merit in the applicants' claim for seniority vis vis-à-vis candidates appointed through regular recruitment under the applicable Recruitment Rules prior to their regularization. 6.9 Moreover, a considerable period has elapsed since the relevant appointments, ntments, and granting retrospective seniority at this stage would open Page 17 of 18 Item No.40/C-5 O.A. No.2028/2017 the floodgates of litigation and disrupt the seniority of numerous employees, causing them significant prejudice and grievance. Such a change would unsettle the settled and crystallized rights relating to seniority, rank, and promotion that employees have acquired over the intervening period. Altering the seniority list after such a long time would be manifestly unjust to the many employees who would be caught in uncertainty through no ffault of their own, thereby resulting in a retrospective loss of seniority rights.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1 In view of the above analysis, we do not not find any merit in the present Original Application, therefore, the same is dismissed accordingly.
7.2. Pending M.A.s, M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No Costs.
Dr. Anand S Khati Manish Garg
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 18 of 18