Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Pyare Mohan Srivastava vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 17 November, 2025
(Reserved on 10.11.2025.)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
Original Application No. 330/00527 of 2017
Pronounced on 17th day of November, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Pyare Mohan Srivastava 59 years, son of late Kamla Prasad Srivastava,
resident of BandhwaTahirpur, Jhunsi, District Allahabad, at present
working as Senior Clerk in the office of I.C.M.R (Human Reproduction
Research Centre), Department of Obst. And Gynecology, M.L.N
Medical College, Allahabad (dead)
1/1 Smt. Geeta Srivastava W/o Pyare Mohan Srivastava
1/2 Praveen Kumar Srivastava S/o Pyare Mohan Srivastava
1/3 Nitin Kumar Srivastava S/o Pyare Mohan Srivastava
All R/o Bandhwa Tahirpur, Jhunsi, District Allahabad
.......Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S.C Srivastava
Versus
1. Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, Post Box No.
4506, New Delhi through it Director General.
2. Director General, Indian Council Medical Research,, Ansari
Nagar, Post Box No. 4506, New Delhi.
3. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New
Delhi.
4. Administrative Officer, office of Director General Indian Council
of Medical Research, Ansari Marg, New Delhi.
5. Principal, MotiLal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad.
6. Professor and Head of Department, Obst., and Gynecology,
MotiLal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad.
......Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan/Sri M.B Singh
ORDER
This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-
"8.1. That the direction be issued to respondents authorities to consider the regularization of applicant from the date of his initial appointment, otherwise he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2 8.2. That any other and further order as it deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
8.3 Award cost of petition to the applicant".
2. During the pendency of this OA, the original applicant Pyare Mohan Srivastava passed away and thereafter his widow, sons and daughters have been substituted in his place by way of a substitution application.
3. The brief facts of the case are that original applicant was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist under an ICMR project and joined the respondent-department on 23.02.1981. Though the appointment was described as temporary, his services were never discontinued and the project itself has been running continuously since the beginning. The original applicant has, therefore, worked for more than 36 years under the direct control and supervision of respondents No. 5 and 6. Various circulars issued by the respondents clearly show that the staff working under the ICMR Human Reproduction Research Centre were treated at par with employees of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. Circulars dated 07.07.1981, 21.12.1982, and the pay-revision circular dated 30.12.1987 make it evident that the applicant was given allowances, increments, revised pay scales, and promotional pay scales in the same manner as permanent employees. This reflects that the project was of a permanent nature, and the original applicant's service was treated as continuous and regular for all practical purposes. When similarly situated employees namely Dr. Rita Shukla and Ram Kripal Yadav) were denied regularization, she approached the Tribunal. In OA No. 54/2011 (Dr. Rita Shukla Vs. Union of India and others) and OA No. 528/2017 (Ram Kripal Yadav Vs. Union of India and others), this Tribunal directed the authorities to consider their cases for regularization, relying on the judgment of the Madras Bench in OA No. 1332/2000. Contempt proceedings are also pending before the Hon'ble Madras High Court for non-compliance of those directions. Despite these clear precedents and despite being identically placed, the representation of the original applicant requesting regularization has not been decided by the respondents. Since the original applicant has served MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 continuously for more than three decades, has been given revised pay scales and service benefits like permanent employees and is similarly situated to other employees whose cases have already been allowed by the Tribunal, he is fully entitled to the same benefit. Therefore, the present OA deserves to be allowed in terms of the orders passed in OA No. 528/2017, OA No. 54/2011, OA No. 966/2016 and OA No. 1332/2000.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the Original Application. They have stated in the counter affidavit that the Human Reproductive Research Centres (HRRC) are research units identified by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), but these centres are fully operated and managed by the respective State Government hospitals. The ICMR only provides financial assistance and does not recruit, appoint, or manage staff working in these centres. According to the respondents, the Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the concerned State Government hospital is responsible for all matters relating to engagement, supervision, and management of staff in HRRCs as per State Government rules. Therefore, the ICMR has no role or responsibility in relation to the appointment or regularization of the original applicant. The respondents further stated in the counter affidavit that the original applicant was engaged purely on a contractual basis under the HRRC project through respondent No. 6, as per the letter dated 07.07.1981. His appointment was related to a project of limited duration and such engagement does not create any right to permanent absorption. The project itself was not intended to be of a permanent nature and no sanctioned posts existed for such appointments. Hence, the applicants cannot claim regularization of original applicant for a post that does not exist under approved rules. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the applicants have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and that the government is under no obligation to regularize temporary or project-based staff who were not appointed through a regular selection process. Therefore, the Original Application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 294;
(ii) Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of UP and another decided in Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 on 19.08.2025 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(iii) The Managing Director Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Ajmer and another Vs.. Chiggan Lal & others passed in Civil Appeal No (s). 1875 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) NO. 19181 of 2017) on 07.03.2022.
5. The applicants have filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in his Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.
6. I have heard Shri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.B Singh and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the original applicant (late Pyare Mohan Srivastava) was appointed as Clerk-cum- Typist under the ICMR Human Reproduction Research Centre and had been continuously working since 1981 without any break in service. It is argued that respondent No. 2 issued circulars dated 07.07.1981 and 21.12.1982 directing that the HRRC staff would receive allowances and pay scales at par with the employees of Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. In compliance thereof, the original applicant was granted revised pay under the IVth Pay Commission, annual increments and a promotional pay scale after completion of 10 years of service. According to learned counsel, these facts clearly show that although the appointment was termed temporary, the nature of his employment became permanent in substance. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that similarly situated employees have already been granted relief by this Tribunal and other judicial forums. In OA No. 54 of 2011 (Dr. Rita Shukla), this Tribunal directed consideration of regularization of HRRC staff by relying upon the judgment of the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5 Madras Bench in OA No. 1332/2000, which was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Despite such clear directions, the respondents have not considered the case of the present applicant. It is also pointed out that during the pendency of this OA, another employee from the same HRRC, Shri Ram Kripal Yadav, was granted relief by this Tribunal in OA No. 528/2017 on identical grounds. The applicant is similarly placed and there exists no justification for treating him differently. Therefore, the respondents are bound to follow the same principles and extend the same benefits of regularization to the present applicant as well.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the averments made in the Original Application are wholly misconceived. It is stated that the Human Reproductive Research Centres (HRRC) are set up by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in various government hospitals only for research purposes, and the ICMR's role is confined to providing financial assistance. The recruitment, engagement and management of staff at these centres are entirely the responsibility of the concerned State Government hospitals. The ICMR has no role in the appointment or service management of the HRRC staff. It is further submitted that the applicant was engaged purely on a contractual basis under the letter dated 07.07.1981 issued by respondent No. 6. The project itself was temporary in nature and was to continue only for the project period. The applicant's engagement was never made against any sanctioned post and was not made in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules. Therefore, no right to regularization can arise for a post which does not exist in the sanctioned establishment. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that temporary or contractual employees have no vested or fundamental right to claim regularization, particularly when their initial appointment was not made through due process. It is further argued that the original applicant has not come before the Court with clean hands and is trying to seek a relief that is legally impermissible. Therefore, the Original Application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6
8. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the entire record.
9. Before discussing the submission raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the judgment and order passed in OA No. 528/2017 (Ram Kripal Yadav Vs. Union of India):-
"(Reserved on 16.07.2024) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD.
Dated : This the 09th Day of August, 2024 Original Application No. 330/0528 of 2017 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Ram Kripal Yadav, a/a 51 years son of Sri Sahdeo Yadav, resident of Beli Road, Allahabad, at present working as Driver in the office of I.C.M.R. (Human Reproduction Research Centre), Department of Obst. and Gynecology, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad . .................Applicant.
By Adv : Shri S.C. Srivastava.
VERSUS
1. Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, Post Box No.4506, New Delhi through it Director General.
2. Director General, Indian Council, Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, Post Box No.4506, New Delhi.
3. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance New Delhi.
4. Administrative Officer, office of Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Marg, New Delhi.
5. Principal, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. 6. Professor and Head of Department, Obst. and Gynecology, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad.
.................Respondents By Adv: Shri Mahendra Bahadur Singh ORDER The present Original Application was filed by the applicant on 02.05.2017, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents' authorities to consider the applicant's regularization from the date of his initial appointment.
2. The brief facts of the case are encapsulated as follows:
(i) The applicant was appointed to the position of clerk on 07.07.1981, following a selection process conducted by respondent No. 6. The applicant commenced service on 28.02.1981 and has consistently performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. Despite the temporary nature of his appointment, the applicant's services have not been discontinued, and he remains employed without interruption in the college of respondent No. 5, under the direct supervision of respondent No. 6. His performance has been satisfactory, with no complaints.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7
(ii) The project under which the applicant was appointed as a clerk has continued without interruption since his appointment. Respondent No. 2 issued a circular letter on 07.07.1981 stating that employees of the Human Reproduction Research Centre, where the applicant works, should receive allowances equivalent to those of employees at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. The applicant has continued to benefit from these facilities.
(iii) Furthermore, a letter dated 21.12.1982 from respondent No. 2 to respondents No. 5 and 6 confirmed that the ICMR project staff should receive pay allowances according to the rules of respondent No. 5's institution. This supports the view that the ICMR project, initiated at respondent No. 5's institution, was intended for permanent purposes and provided facilities similar to those available to permanent medical college staff. With the implementation of the IVth Pay Commission from 01.01.1986, pay scales, including that of the applicant, were revised, as evidenced by a circular dated 30.12.1987.
(iv) The applicant has served continuously under the direct control of respondents No. 5 and 6 since 1981. Given the project's ongoing nature and the applicant's 36 years of uninterrupted service, it is argued that the project has achieved a de facto permanent status. Consequently, it is reasonable to argue that the applicant's services should be regularized. Evidence from respondent No. 6 shows that the applicant received increments and a promotional pay scale after 10 years of satisfactory service, and his pay was adjusted in the revised scale.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a counter affidavit on 13.10.2023 refuting the averments made in the Original Application and stated that:-
(i) The Human Reproductive Research Centres (HRRC) are identified by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for research in human reproduction across various government hospitals in India. These centers are operated by the state government hospitals, and the ICMR's role is limited to providing financial support. The engagement, recruitment, and management of staff at these centers fall under the purview of the state government hospitals, not the ICMR.
(ii) The Head of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at the concerned state government hospitals is responsible for managing the HRRC centers, including staff recruitment and management, in accordance with state government rules and regulations. The ICMR does not have a role in the recruitment or management of HRRC staff.
(iii) The engagement and management of staff for the HRRC centers are entirely the responsibility of the host government hospitals. The ICMR cannot be held liable for regularizing the engagement of HRRC staff or placing them on ICMR's payroll. There is no fundamental right for temporary or contractual staff to be absorbed into permanent service.
(iv) The applicant was engaged as a clerk on a contractual basis as per the letter dated 07.07.1981 issued by respondent No. 6. The appointment was for a project that was not intended to be permanent. The project, as outlined in the appointment letter, was for a limited period and could be extended but not continued beyond the project duration.
(v) The applicant's claim for regularization is unfounded since the recruitment did not follow relevant recruitment rules, and there were no sanctioned posts for such appointments. The applicant cannot claim regularization for a non-existent post.
(vi) The applicant did not approach the Hon'ble Tribunal for regularization until 05.05.2017, a delay of 36 years, which is excessive and constitutes laches. Such inordinate delay renders the Original Application liable to be dismissed.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 8
(vii) Regularization is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after an inordinate delay. The Original Application filed 36 years after the cause of action, is severely time-barred and thus liable to be dismissed.
(viii) The applicant has not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands. The current application appears to be a result of reconciled afterthoughts, and the cases referred to by the applicant were decided on a personal basis, not applicable in rem.
(ix) The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 464 emphasized that relief should not be granted to individuals who have been lax in asserting their rights. The doctrine of laches applies where there is acquiescence and unreasonable delay.
(x) In Bhoop Singh v. UOI (AIR 1992 SC 1414), the Supreme Court held that government servants must approach the court for relief within a reasonable period to avoid disrupting administrative setups. An unexplained delay of several years is a strong ground for denying relief.
(xi) In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Ghanshyam Dass (2011 (4) SC 364), it was reiterated that delayed claims would not be entertained, and rights cannot be asserted after long inaction.
(xii) The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 1) established that regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment. The government is not obligated to make temporary or casual employees permanent if they were not appointed following due process.
4. Heard Shri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Mahendra Bahadur Singh assisted by Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. The material available on record has also been thoroughly examined and considered.
5. The submissions of the leaned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant commenced his service on 28.02.1981 and has consistently performed his duties satisfactorily. Despite the initial temporary nature of his appointment, the applicant's service has been uninterrupted, and he continues to work in the college of respondent No. 5 under the direct supervision of respondent No. 6. The project under which the applicant was appointed has continued without interruption, and allowances equivalent to those of permanent staff at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, have been provided to him. Additionally, a letter from respondent No. 2 dated 21.12.1982 confirmed that the ICMR project staff should receive pay allowances in accordance with the rules of respondent No. 5's institution, indicating that the project was intended for permanent purposes. With the implementation of the IVth Pay Commission from 01.01.1986, the applicant's pay scale was revised. Given the continuous nature of the project and the applicant's 36 years of uninterrupted service, it is argued that the project has attained a de facto permanent status, warranting the regularization of the applicant's services.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant cited the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.966/2016 (Smt Shobha Rani Srivastava vs. Union of India & Ors.) and submitted the case of the applicant is identical to OA No.966/2016.
7. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Human Reproductive Research Centres (HRRC) are identified by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for research in human reproduction, and these centers are operated by state government hospitals. The ICMR's role is limited to providing financial support, and the recruitment and management of HRRC staff fall under the jurisdiction of the state government hospitals. The Head of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at these hospitals is responsible for managing the HRRC centers, including staff recruitment. The ICMR is not responsible for the recruitment or management of HRRC staff. The applicant was engaged on a contractual basis for a project that was not intended to be permanent, and the project could only be extended but not continued MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 9 beyond its duration. The claim for regularization is therefore unfounded as the recruitment did not follow relevant rules and there were no sanctioned posts for such appointments. Additionally, the applicant's delay of 36 years in approaching the Hon'ble Tribunal constitutes laches and renders the application time-barred. The counsel emphasized that regularization is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after such a prolonged delay. Citing precedents such as Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 464 and Bhoop Singh v. UOI (AIR 1992 SC 1414), the counsel argued that relief should not be granted for delayed claims and that the regularization cannot be used as a mode of recruitment as established by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 1).
8. After considering the submissions of both counsels and the material available on record as well as the order placed by the applicant in support of this case, the Tribunal is of the view that while the applicant's long tenure and continuous service under the ICMR project demonstrate a commitment to his duties, there are significant procedural and jurisdictional concerns raised by the respondents.
9. The respondents have asserted that the Human Reproductive Research Centres (HRRC) are managed by state government hospitals, and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) only provides financial support. The management of staff at these centers falls under the purview of the respective state government hospitals, and the ICMR does not have a role in their recruitment or regularization.
10. However, given the substantial length of uninterrupted service provided by the applicant and the argument that the project has achieved a de facto permanent status, the Tribunal recognizes the merit in reviewing the applicant's case further.
11. Therefore, considering the arguments and precedents advanced by learned counsel for both parties, a direction was given to the applicant to move a fresh representation before the respondents detailing all his grievances along with relevant documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the said representation of the applicant by passing a detailed reasoned and speaking order within further three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation. While deciding the case of the applicant, the respondents should also consider the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 966/2016 and evaluate the applicant's circumstances in accordance with the principles and findings established in that order. It is further, directed that If the applicant's circumstances are found to be identical to those of similarly situated individuals who were granted benefits, the applicant shall be afforded the same benefits. However, it is important to acknowledge that regularization is not an inherent right and cannot be claimed after an extended delay. Moreover, as established by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 1), regularization cannot be used as a mode of recruitment. Therefore, while reconsidering the applicant's case, the respondents must ensure adherence to these legal principles and precedents.
13. The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the representation submitted by the applicant.
14. All pending M.As (Miscellaneous Applications), if any, are considered disposed of. The registry will take the necessary steps to remove the M.As.
15 Parties are directed to bear their own costs".
10. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondents have not disputed that the applicant in the present O.A. is similarly situated to the applicant in O.A. No. 528/2017, which was decided by MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 10 this Tribunal on 09.08.2024. I have also examined the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in the said O.A., wherein the respondents were directed to decide the representation for granting the benefit of regularization of service. Since the factual position of the present applicant is identical, I am of the considered view that original applicant is also entitled to the same benefits as were extended in O.A. No. 528/2017. The judgments cited by the respondents do not advance their case. The legal principles laid down therein are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the present matter. Hence, the reliance placed on those authorities is of no assistance to the respondents.
11. In the case of State of Karnataka & Others vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently."
12. The ratio laid down in C. Lalitha (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The said judgment casts a clear obligation upon the respondents to extend identical benefits to all similarly situated employees. Since the original applicant stands on the same footing as the applicant in O.A. No. 528/2017, he is entitled to be granted the same benefits without discrimination.
13. In view of the settled legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that similarly situated employees are to be treated alike. The respondents, therefore, ought to have extended the same benefit to the original applicant as was granted in O.A. No. 528/2017.
14 Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for both parties as well as the precedents relied upon, this Tribunal issues the following directions:
(i) The applicants shall file a fresh representation before the respondents, clearly setting out all the grievances along with MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 11 relevant supporting documents, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(ii) Upon receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider and decide the same by passing a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months. While doing so, the respondents shall also take into consideration the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 528/2017, and shall examine the applicant's case in the light of the principles and findings laid down therein.
(iii) If, upon such consideration, the original applicant is found to be similarly situated to other employees who were granted benefits, he shall be extended the same treatment. It is, however, made clear that regularization is not a vested right, particularly where there is inordinate delay, and cannot be invoked as a substitute for the regular mode of recruitment, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1.
(iv) The entire exercise, including disposal of the representation, shall be completed by the respondents within a total period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the applicant's representation.
15. In view of the above, the Original Application stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. All connected MAs stand disposed of.
(JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII) Member (J) Manish MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA