Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Baiju T Cherian vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 23 May, 2025
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Miscellaneous Application No.180/00633/2024
in Original Application No.180/00318/2018
&
Original Application No.180/00318/2018
Friday this the 23rd day of May 2025
CO RAM :
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Baiju.T.Cherian, Aged 50 years,
S/o.Cherian Kuriakose,
Peon (MTS) (on casual basis),
Indian Institute of Mass Communication,
M.G.University Campus, Kottayam - 686 560.
Residing at Thazhathedathu Veedu,
Manarcad P.O., Kottayam - 686 019. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mrs.Girija K Gopal)
versus
1. Union of India
represented by the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Registrar,
Indian Institute of Mass Communication, JNU New Campus,
Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi - 110 067.
3. The Special Officer,
Indian Institute of Mass Communication,
M.G.University Campus, P.D.Hills P.O.,
Kottayam - 686 560. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.E.N.Hari Menon, ACGSC)
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30'
-2-
This application having been heard on 20th March, 2025 the
Tribunal on 23rd May, 2025 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant in this case has been working as a Casual Peon (MTS) under the 2nd and 3rd respondents since 16.10.1995. He has approached this Tribunal since he is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in the matter of regularization of his services when the posts have since been created by the respondents. It has been submitted by the applicant that the 3 rd respondent is going ahead with calling of candidates for walk-in-interview for the post of Peon at Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC) Southern Regional Campus at Kottayam on 04.04.2018 without considering regularization of the service rendered by him to the organization for more than 22 years resulting in substantial prejudice, irreparable injury and recurring monthly losses to him.
2. The IIMC is an autonomous body under the direct control and supervision of the Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi. It was established by the Government of India to promote excellence in communication, journalism and public relations. The institute, with its headquarters at Delhi, has institutions at various A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -3- places like Delhi, Orissa, Kottayam etc. The institute trains officers of the Indian Information Service, journalists and other professionals and also conduct various Diploma courses in Journalism and Public Relations. The Kottayam Branch of the institute where the applicant has been working was constituted in 1994. The applicant was appointed as a Peon on casual basis with effect from 16.10.1995. A copy of the letter intimating the same is produced as Annexure A-1. The applicant's pay was revised from time to time till the year 2000 consistent with the enhancement of the DA for the Central Government employees. From the year 2000 onwards, he was being paid at the rate of Rs.117/- per day. In the year 2002 he submitted a representation to the respondent praying for regularization of his services and for increase of pay. Thereupon in addition to the wages paid he was also granted an honorarium of Rs.350/- per month vide order bearing No.X/3002(Pt) dated 23.06.2003. On further representation the 3 rd respondent recommended an increase in pay of the applicant which was responded to from the office of the 2 nd respondent by a letter dated 20.01.2009 seeking clarification regarding the engagement of the daily wagers. This is produced as Annexure A-4 which was responded to by Annexure A-5 on 13.02.2009 which clarified the nature of engagement of the applicant and the period from which he was being continuously employed.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -4-
3. It is submitted that the applicant was the only employee appointed since 1995 and continued without break. The applicant received a notice dated 23.05.2011 proposing to terminate his services within one month of the letter as the unit was being closed, which is produced as Annexure A-6. Annexure A-7 representation was submitted by the applicant since no action was taken by the respondents on it, he had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.539/2011 praying for a direction to the respondents to consider and regularize him as per the recommendations in Annexure A-5 and also for a direction not to terminate his services. The aforesaid O.A was disposed of by order dated 21.06.2011 directing that the representation submitted by the applicant be disposed of before the actual termination of his services. However, without considering the representation of the applicant as directed by this Tribunal, the respondents terminated his service by not permitting him to attend to his duty and also by not permitting him to sign the muster roll. Hence, the applicant approached this Tribunal once again by filing O.A.No.671/2011. During the pendency of the aforesaid O.A., the respondents issued orders terminating the service of the applicant under order No.V/850-11/MCI dated 28.11.2011 and 30.11.2011 both issued by the Deputy Registrar in the office of the 2 nd respondent which was produced as Annexure A-9 and Annexure A-10. Consequently, A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -5- O.A.No.671/2011 was dismissed leaving open the right of the applicant to challenge the retrenchment orders, a copy of the order in the O.A is produced as Annexure A-11. Thereafter the applicant also received cheques in lieu of compensation under Section 25-F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and also one month's salary under Section 25-F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also received a cheque towards arrears of salary for the period during which he was denied employment.
4. It is submitted that the closure of the institute at Kottayam had not taken place as was evident from the newspaper reports published in Deepika and Mathrubhumi (Malayalam Daily) dated 13.01.2012, copies of which are marked as Annexure A-12 and Annexure A-13. It is also submitted that a number of casual labourers are still in employment in various institutes under the 2 nd respondent many of whom are juniors to the applicant. Aggrieved the applicant filed O.A.No.64/2012 during the pendency of which the respondents promised that they would reinstate him back to service provided he withdraws O.A.No.64/2012. In the circumstances the applicant filed M.A.No.624/2012 seeking permission to withdraw the O.A with liberty to take up the matter before the departmental authorities. Taking judicial notice of the said submission in the M.A., the O.A was closed with liberty to take up the matter with the A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -6- departmental authorities. This is produced as Annexure A-14. Consequently, the respondents reinstated the applicant back to service on 13.08.2012 and he has been continuing in service ever since. He admits that his appointment as a Group 'D' was on contractual basis. A copy of his joining report is produced as Annexure A-15. Annexure A-16, Annexure A-17, Annexure A-18 and Annexure A19, Annexure A-20, Annexure A-21, Annexure A-22 and Annexure A-23 letters were representations and forwarding letters of the 3 rd respondent wherein the applicant had been seeking enhancement of his wages and regularization of his services. While so, the 2 nd respondent issued a communication bearing No.V/1196/2018-MCI dated 15.02.2018 indicating the procedure for engaging the contract staff, which is produced as Annexure A-24. In terms of Annexure A-24 all contract staff who have been working in IIMC/its Regional Campuses for more than five years have to be discontinued and fresh advertisement has to be given for engagement of contract staff afresh against the requirement of IIMC and its Regional Campuses. This revised procedure came into effect from 01.04.2018. Annexure A-24 has been reiterated in letter bearing No.V/1196/2018-MCI dated 26.03.2018, which is produced as Annexure A-25.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -7-
5. Consequently, Annexure A-26 notification, which has been challenged in this O.A., invited candidates for "walk-in-interview" for the position of Assistant Professor/Peon/Cook in IIMC Southern Regional Campus at Kottayam on 04.04.2018. The applicant has submitted that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP(C) No.24758/2013 dated 31.07.2017 which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by its order dated 05.01.2018 in SLP(C) Dairy No.35963/2017 filed by the IIMC Society & Ors., the applicant was entitled to be considered and regularized against the post of Peon under the 3rd respondent, the post against which, he has been working for the last more than 22 years, copies of which are produced as Annexure A-27 and Annexure A-28.
6. It has been argued by the applicant that the object of Annexure A-24 is a colourable exercise of power as is evident from Annexure A-25 wherein the respondents state that the attempt is only to overcome the decisions of the various Hon'ble High Courts upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and should, therefore, be set aside. He also submits that the object of Annexure A-24 is not in public interest nor is it in administrative exigencies but is intended solely to overcome the judicial pronouncements on the subject and is violative of the constitutional A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -8- guarantees enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16. He seeks the benefit of Annexure A-27 decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also submitted that the applicant's engagement as a casual labourer with effect from 16.10.1995 was not illegal and the same was in accordance with law. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court even in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors., vs. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 the applicant was entitled to be regularized.
7. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they submit that IIMC, Kottayam was sought to be established in 1995 and the applicant was engaged by the Officer on Special Duty on daily wage basis with effect from 16.10.1995 without any prior approval of the respondents. The expenses for engagement of the applicant was later approved by the respondents. However, till the year 2013 the OSD could not make any progress to start activities in the campus as there was no sanctioned post and the applicant continued to be engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis. The engagement of the applicant was not done in response to an advertisement or through regular selection process. The OSD wrote the letter of recommendation for regularization of his service knowing fully well that the project of establishing the A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -9- campus was itself at a standstill as no posts or funds were available. In 2011, the applicant's service was terminated as the campus land and building were surrendered to the State Government. In 2012 when the 1 st respondent received requisite funds and approvals to start the campus he was re-engaged as a contractual worker for a year as no sanctioned post was available. After 2012 his contract was renewed only on yearly basis in the absence of any sanctioned post. The applicant had entered into service agreement with the 2nd respondent to be a contract employee for one year vide agreement dated 12.02.2017 and 13.02.2018 produced as Annexure R-1. Since the applicant has rendered service from 16.10.1995 to 30.11.2011 and then from 12.08.2012 till present on contract basis against no sanctioned post and no formal procedure for recruitment was followed, the applicatin is devoid of merits and is required to be dismissed. The termination of the contract of the applicant on 30.11.2011 had attained finality and he was duly paid one month's salary as compensation as per contract. It is submitted that no campus was in existence at Kottayam till August 2012 and thereafter applicant was engaged afresh as a casual worker for one year on 12.08.2012. These are admitted facts in the petition on the basis of which itself no claim for continuity of service from 1995 was admissible.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -10-
8. It is submitted that all engagements in the IIMC, Kottayam campus are made on short term contract basis which are not against the sanctioned posts and the engagement of the applicant was not in response to an advertisement or through regular selection process and thus his services could not be regularized. It is submitted that the averment of the applicant that IIMC unit at Kottayam was not closed is incorrect and the applicant had himself admitted to the same in his representations produced as Annexure A-15 to Annexure A-20. The claim for continuous engagement, therefore, is factually incorrect. Apart from Kottayam campus, IIMC has campuses at Jammu, Amravati, Dhenkanal and Aizwal in which campuses casual workers were engaged temporarily on contract basis for maintenance work/house-keeping job. Such engagements were made on local basis and hence there is neither any question of inter se seniority amongst them nor any question of deployment of the staff engaged for one campus in another campus.
9. Subsequently, M.A.No.180/633/2024 was filed on 24.07.2024 wherein it is submitted that when the respondents while continuing to engage the applicant on daily wage basis, on the evening of 05.07.2024 he was called and informed that he need not report at the office of the 3 rd respondent directly from the next day onwards and that he should fill up A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -11- a form provided by a private group by name BVG India Limited, failing which he cannot continue under the 3rd respondent, which was an indirect move on the part of the respondents to disengage him and is an attempt to bring him under the rolls of an external agency. The applicant submitted a representation against this action of the respondents pleading that he may be continued to be engaged by the 3 rd respondent directly and not to be forced to work under a private house keeping agency. It is submitted that he has not received any reply to the aforesaid representation, on the other hand, his services have been disengaged and he has not been permitted to work after 05.07.2024.
10. Heard both sides in extenso. The main contention of the respondents is that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) would apply squarely here as the post is not sanctioned and the applicant was not recruited by due process of selection. Since July, 2024 the entire house keeping activities of the institute has been outsourced and hence no prayer for regularization rests. The applicant has been disengaged pending the O.A and a fresh advertisement has been issued at Annexure A-26. Annexure A-24 and Annexure A-26 are under challenge. The arguments that the regularization of casual workers in the then campus vide the order of the A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -12- Hon'ble High Court of Orrisa in W.P(C)24758/2012 and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per Annexure A-28 rests the claim that the post was sanctioned. However it was placed on record that only Delhi had sanctioned post for appointment and this was factually not correct. As per the decision cited in Annexure A-31 in the case of Basanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.24759/2012 it is held that "there is an exception to the general principles against regularization enunciated in Uma Devi if the following conditions are fulfilled (1) the employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than 10 years. (2) the appointment of such employee should not be illegal even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possesses the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -13- In that view of the matter, since the petitioners are continuing in service for last 25 years and even though their appointment is irregular they should be regularized in service in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) and M.L.Keshari (supra)."
11. In the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Subhankari Das & Ors., W.P.(C) No.34332/2023 the Hon'ble Orrisa High Court in the case of employees of IIMC, Dhenkanal stated that in a case of similarly situated persons ie. Basanta Kumar Sahoo (supra), relying on the decisions rendered in Uma Devi (supra) and M.L.Keshari (supra) direction was issued for regularization of such employees. Similarly, in the case of Manoj Kumar Jena & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.24758/2012 disposed of on 31.07.2017, this Court also took the similar view as was taken in the case of Basanta Kumar Sahoo (supra) The order passed in the case of Manoj Kumar Jena (supra) was assailed by the authorities before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.No.35963/2017 which was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2018 and thereby the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orrisa was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Amrish Kumar v. Indian Institute of Mass Communication, W.P.(C) No.5906/2018 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows :
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -14- "6. In the present case too, the workmen admittedly have been working for 23 years. It clearly tantamounts to unfair labour practice by denying them the benefits of regular services for 23 years. The objective of the Act is to prevent unfair labour practice which is defined in detail in 5 th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with reference to section 2A. The specific definition applicable to the present case is clause 10 which reads as under :-
"10. To employ workmen as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen."
7. The facts of the instant case as discussed hereinabove clearly show that keeping the workmen in uninterrupted service for 23 years as casual workmen and denying them the status and privilege of permanent workmen, constitutes unfair labour practice which is illegal and needs to be quashed. Furthermore, similarly situated workmen of the respondent who worked in its other administrative unit in Orissa (Dhenkanal), for roughly half a century on ad hoc basis, have been directed by the Orissa High Court in Basanta Kumar Sahoo vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 24759/2012, decided on 31.07.2017 to be regularized. The said judgment had referred to and relied upon Umadevi (supra) and State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247. The SLP against the said judgment of the Orissa High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 05.01.2018, therefore, it has attained finality. The beneficiary workmen in that case have become regular employees. The case of the present petitioners is identical. That being the position i.e. they had worked for almost 23 years; the employer was same; they had been working against the sanctioned posts; they were not considered as regular employees, therefore, the treatment meted out to them constitutes unfair labour practice. In the circumstances, their services too shall be regularized from initial date of joining, with all consequential benefits ." A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -15-
12. This decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.710/2021 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2021. Thus, the respondents have argued that all these claims was against the facts and had to create supernumerary posts to implement the same. The respondents have argued that the Annexure A-26 notification calling for fresh applications to the post of Cook are required to have a Class 8 pass and therefore, he could not seek quashing of Annexure A-24 and Annexure A-26. He did not have continuous service as his service was terminated on 2011 with suitable compensation and he was hired afresh in 2012 on a casual basis on an agreement. It is argued that there is no connection between Annexure A-24 and Annexure A-26 and therefore, the application has no ground.
13. It is established law that an adhoc employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc employee as held in Manish Gupta & Anr., Etc. Etc v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406. The respondents have admitted to bypassing this particular position by asking an adhoc contractual employee to reapply through a private contractor and to become an employee of contractor for doing the exact same work which he has been doing since 1995 to 2011 and 2012 to 2024.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -16-
14. Even if we do not acknowledge that the applicant has 23 years of service as on the date of filing the application, but as of the date he was directed to work through a private contractor he had completed 12 years of continuous service as a contract employee. Even if that was a contract it was renewed from 2012 to 2024. Hence the contention of the respondents that there are no sanctioned posts in the campus itself and that the campus has been working without a single sanctioned post for the last 12 years and entirely on the basis of the contractual employment is an admission of administrative dissonance, which is quite surprising. One can understand the fact that since the campus was not performing teaching work, they did not have sanctioned post. However, to continue function as a teaching institution on purely adhoc employment with 'walk-in-interview' for all employees including teaching staff is quite remarkable in itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Raman Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520 that the act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of other entitled employees, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this particular instance the respondents have submitted that Dhenkanal Campus where casual employees have been regularized pursuant to the order in Basanta Kumar Sahoo & others (supra) was also against posts which are not A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -17- being sanctioned. Though it cannot be accepted as an averment considering that it has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme, it is an admission that they considered similarly placed employees differently which is not permissible as laid down in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406 in Manish Gupta & Anr. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. In the case of Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., arising out of SLP (C) No.5580/2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -18-
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."
15. The above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are a fair indication of the mind of the highest court in the land on the subject of proper labour practices. It is noted that the wages paid to the applicant during the years are in contravention of the local laws relating to the minimum wages which have been repeatedly brought to notice of the 2nd respondent by the local authorities ie., 3 rd respondent. Even if the employees were to be treated as a casual worker, there is also an attempt to circumvent the guidelines in Uma Devi (supra) by requiring the applicant to join a private contractual agency instead of continue as a direct contractual employee of the institute itself. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College, A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -19- AIRONLINE 2021 SC 775 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'outsourcing' cannot be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution on the basis of mere presumption and assumption. However, the manner in which the applicant has been forced to participate in the outsourcing process and has been disengaged despite the fact of having been a long standing employee, with a view to circumvent the legal requirement as set out by the order in Uma Devi & Ors. (supra) and in Basanta Kumar Sahoo (supra) can only be decried.
16. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court & Hon'ble High Court in Jaggo (supra) and in Basanta Kumar Sahoo (supra) respectively, the 3rd respondent is directed to regularize the service of the applicant forthwith. M.A.No.180/633/2024 is allowed. The applicant is deemed to have been continued in the institute during the interim period. It is also directed that the institute (2 nd and 3rd respondents) shall ensure that they are in compliance with the local laws as regards payment of minimum wages to the employees and any differential wages due to the applicant which would have accrued to the applicant, if they were in compliance with the local labour laws, will also be paid from the date of his reinstatement in 2012.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -20-
17. With the above directions, the O.A is allowed. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2025) V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER asp A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -21- List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00318/2018
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the letter bearing No.Nil dated 01.11.1995 issued by the then Officer-in-Charge of the Kottayam Centre.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the representation dated 17.09.2002 submitted by the applicant.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the order bearing No.X/3002 (Pt) dated 23.06.2003 issued by the Registrar in the office of the 2 nd respondent.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the letter bearing No.IV/1805- MCI/2001 (Pt-II) dated 20.01.2009 issued from the office of the 2 nd respondent.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the letter bearing No.IIMC/KTM/4/2008-09/29 dated 13.02.2009 issued by the 3 rd respondent.
6. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the notice bearing No.IIMC/KTM/2/2010-12/8 dated 23.05.2011 issued from the office of the 3rd respondent.
7. Annexure A-7 - A copy of the representation dated 24.05.2011 addressed to the 2nd respondent.
8. Annexure A-8 - A copy of the order dated 21.06.2011 in O.A.No.539/2011 rendered by this Tribunal.
9. Annexure A-9 - A copy of the order bearing No.V/850-11/MCI dated 28.11.2011 issued by the Deputy Registrar in the office of the 2 nd respondent.
10. Annexure A-10 - A copy of the order bearing No.V/850-11/MCI dated 30.11.2011 issued by the Deputy Registrar in the office of the 2 nd respondent.
11. Annexure A-11 - A copy of the order dated 05.12.2011 in O.A.No.671/2011 rendered by this Tribunal.
12. Annexure A-12 - A copy of the report in Deepika (Malayalam Daily) dated 13.01.2012.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -22-
13. Annexure A-12(A) - A true translation of Annexure A-12.
14. Annexure A-13 - A copy of the report in Mathrubhumi (Malayalam Daily) dated 13.01.2012.
15. Annexure A-13(A) - A true translation of Annexure A-13.
16. Annexure A-14 - A copy of the order in O.A.No.64/2012 dated 03.07.2012 rendered by this Tribunal.
17. Annexure A-15 - A copy of the joining report dated 13.08.2012 submitted to the Special Officer in the office of the 3 rd respondent.
18. Annexure A-16 - A copy of the letter bearing No.A- 12/IIMC/KTM/2014-15/49 dated 17.10.2014 issued by the 3 rd respondent along with the representation dated 16.10.2014 submitted by the applicant.
19. Annexure A-17 - A copy of the letter bearing No.12/IIMC/KTM/2015-16/49 dated 08.07.2015 issued by the 3 rd respondent along with the representation dated 06.07.2015 submitted by the applicant.
20. Annexure A-18 - A copy of the letter bearing No.A.12/IIMC/KTM/2016-17/40 dated 03.10.2016 issued by the 3 rd respondent.
21. Annexure A-19 - A copy of the letter bearing No.A.12/IIMC/KTM/2016-17/45 dated 07.10.2016 issued by the 3 rd respondent.
22. Annexure A-20 - A copy of the representation dated 03.05.2017 submitted to the 2nd respondent.
23. Annexure A-21 - A copy of the letter bearing No.12/Appnmnt/2017-18/115/40 dated 31.01.2018 issued from the office of the 3rd respondent with its enclosure.
24. Annexure A-22 - A copy of the E-mail communication dated 28.02.2018 from the office of the 3rd respondent. A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -23-
25. Annexure A-23 - A copy of the letter bearing No.12/Appnmnt/2017-18/130 dated 28.02.2018 issued from the office of the 3rd respondent along with its enclosures and translation of A23(2).
26. Annexure A-24 - A copy of the letter bearing No.V/1196/2018- MCI dated 15.02.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent.
27. Annexure A-25 - A copy of the letter bearing No.V/1196/2018- MCI dated 26.03.2018 issued from the office of the 2 nd respondent.
28. Annexure A-26 - A copy of the notification inviting candidates for "Walk-in-Interview" to the post of Peon, issued by the 3rd respondent.
29. Annexure A-27 - A copy of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP(C) No.24758/2013 dated 31.07.2017.
30. Annexure A-28 - A copy of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 05.01.2018 in SLP (C) Dairy No.35963/2017 filed by IIMC Society and Others confirming Annexure A-27.
31. Annexure A-29 - A copy of the form given to the applicant as employee information form maintained by BVG India Limited.
32. Annexure A-30 - A copy of the judgment dated 02.11.2023 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP(C) No.34332/2023.
33. Annexure A-31 - A copy of the judgment in Basant Kumar Sahoo vs. Union of India, WP(C) No.24759/2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orrisa, Cuttack.
34. Annexure A-32 - A copy of the judgment dated 14.02.2020 in WP(C) No.5906/2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
35. Annexure R-1(colly) - A copy of the agreement dated 12 th February 2017 and 13th February 2018.
36. Annexure R-2 - A copy of the letter issued by IIMC Hqr. to all Regional Directors.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30' -24-
37. Annexure R-3 - A copy of the agreement and offer letter of applicant.
38. Annexure R-4 - A copy of the order of IIMC Hqr. dated 3rd September 2021.
_______________________________ A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.23 14:22:21+05'30'