Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jitender Kumar vs Health And Family Welfare on 7 November, 2025
1
Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
M.A. No. 4281/2025
in
O.A. No. 3160/2025
Reserved on: 29.10.2025
Pronounced on: 07.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Jitender Kumar and ors.
...Applicants
(By Advocates: Dr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Ms. Hetvi Patel, Mr. Umesh Kr. Singh, Mr. George
Tomes, Ms. Aradhna Singh and Mr. Cheryl Mathew
Mathew)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)
2
Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025
ORDER ON MISC APPLICATION NO. 4281/2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed on behalf of 457 contractual employees engaged with the Mohalla Clinics of the Government of NCT of Delh Delhi, comprising 172 Pharmacists, 145 Mohalla Clinic Assistants, and 140 Multi Tasking Multi-Tasking Workers, seeking protection of their services during the pendency of the associated Original Application No. 3160 of 2025 before this Tribunal. The reliefs sought in the M M.A. are as under:-
"a) Pass an order staying the impugned recruitment notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi;
b) Pass an order or direction directing the Respondents not to terminate, discontinue, or otherwise displace the applicants from their their present services in the Mohalla Clinics, and to continue giving them work and continue them in service during the pendency of the present proceedings;
c) Pass an order or direction restraining the Respondents from making any fresh contractual appointme appointments against the very posts which are presently occupied by the applicants, in violation of the settled law that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees;
d) Pass an order or direction directing the Respond Respondents to absorb and/or regularise the applicants against the posts of Pharmacists, Mohalla Clinic Assistants, and Multi Tasking Workers in the Ayushman Arogya Multi-Tasking Mandirs, having regard to their long years of 3 Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 unblemished service rendered since 2016 and their selection through a transparent, merit selection merit-based process;
e) Pass an order or direction directing the Respondents to redeploy and adjust those Petitioners who have been rendered without work due to the closure of 31 Mohalla Clinics, by accommodating them in othe other functioning Mohalla Clinics or Ayushman Arogya Mandirs, in terms of the assurances already extended by the Respondents;
f) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice."
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants urged to pass a specific order in light of the afore-quoted quoted prayer in the M.A. 2.1 It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the applicants have been serving continuously and without blemish since 2016, 2016, having been recruited through a transparent and merit-based merit based selection process involving written examinations and duly published merit lists.
Despite their long and satisfactory service, the respondents have issued a fresh recruitment notification unde under the newly branded Ayushman Arogya Mandirs, proposing to engage another set of contractual employees for the very same posts, thereby threatening to displace the existing applicants.
4Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 2.2 Learned senior counsel further submitted that the impugned recruitment recruitment notification, apart from seeking to replace one set of contractual employees with another, also prescribes a new upper age limit of 30 years, which was not part of the eligibility conditions at the time of the initial appointment of applicants. As a result, result, a large number of applicants who have already rendered over six years of continuous and unblemished service now find themselves age-barred barred and excluded from participation in the new recruitment process. Even though certain age relaxations have been provided, provided, several applicants remain ineligible, and the notification fails to accord any preference or weightage to their experience.
2.3 Learned senior counsel for the applicants further pointed out that following the filing of the associated Original Application, Application, several Mohalla Clinics have been shut down by the respondents, and many staff members have been orally instructed to sit at home without being redeployed to other functioning clinics, resulting in their loss of livelihood, even though no formal ttermination orders have been issued.
5Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 2.4 Learned senior counsel for the applicant applicants relied upon the well-settled settled principle of law that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees. Learned senior counsel added that this position has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana ryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 118, wherein the Hon'ble Court held that while regular recruitment through the prescribed process is the normal rule, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary empl employee, but only by a regularly selected candidate. Learned senior counsel contended that respondents' respondents' action in seeking to substitute them with a new group of contractual recruits is thus arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to settled law.
2.5 In light of the above, above, the learned senior counsel for the applicants submitted that the displacement of the applicants during the pendency of the associated Original Application would cause irreparable harm and prejudice, depriving them of their livelihood despite their lo long and blemish-free free service rendered in the public health sector, including during the Covid-19 Covid 19 pandemic.
6Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 2.6 Concluding the arguments, learned senior counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the applicants seek interim protection from this Tribunal Tribunal to ensure that their services are not terminated, discontinued, or substituted by new contractual appointees, and that the impugned recruitment notification is stayed. The applicants further also seek directions to the respondents to redeploy and adjust those applicants rendered without work due to the closure of certain Mohalla Clinics, and to continue them in service during the pendency of the present proceedings.
3. Opposi Opposing the M.A.,, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicants have no vested right to continue in service beyond their tenure as they were empanelled under a contract contract, which was purely temporary and scheme-based scheme based under the Mohalla Clinic project.
3.1 Learned counsel submitted that the Government has the authority to restructure restructure the scheme and recruit afresh under the new Ayushman Arogya Mandir initiative, and such administrative decisions cannot be interfered with.
7Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 3.2 Learned counsel added that the M.A. per se is not maintainable in the present associated O.A., wherein the interim order has already been granted. The interim order is continuing and shall remain in force until March 2026.
3.3 The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the principle in Piara Singh (supra) does not grant contractual employees employees a right to continuation or absorption and that the applicants cannot use it to stall new recruitment. The fixation of eligibility criteria and age limits in the new notification was stated to be a matter of policy decision, which is altogether differe different casue of action for which M.A. shall not lie. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the M.A. as being devoid of merit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. We have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicants.
8Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025
5. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
5.1. The gist of the submissions made on behalf of the applicants is that they the have been continuously working in Mohalla Clinics since 2016. Despite an interim order dated 21.08.2025 protecting their employment, 21 applicants were orally directed to stop work without notice, resulting in loss of wages for three months. Simultaneousl Simultaneously, the respondents issued an advertisement to recruit ne new contractual pharmacists. It was also contended that replacing existing contractual workers with new contractual appointees is illegal and and contrary to settled law.
It was emphasized that the work of the applicants is perennial, their service record is unblemished, and even the Chief Minister assured that existing staff would be retained and redeployed if clinics were closed. Given the large number of vacancies and the small number of applicants, their continued engagement would cause no difficulty. Accordingly, the applicants seek protection of their services and reinstatement of the 21 employees asked to sit at home.
9Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 5.2. At the outset, we would draw reference to the order of proceedings dated 21.08.2025 21.08. in present OA OA, wherein, while issuing notice to the respondents respondents and granting interim relief to the applicants, applicants, this Tribunal observed as under:
"In the instant O.A., the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:
"a. For an order directing the resp respondents to forthwith appoint/absorb all the applicants as employees of the Arogya Mandirs currently operational/to be made operational in the whole of Delhi prior to any other person/employee of the Delhi government (either regular/contractual/fresh) eitherr directly or indirectly, or through contractors or outsourced.
b. For an order restraining the respondents not to fill any post in any Arogya Mandir in the whole of Delhi on a regular/contractual/outsourced/ad regular/contractual/outsourced/ad- hoc/temporary basis until all the applicant applicants in the present O.A have been appointed/absorb.
c. For an order directing the regularization of all the applicants forthwith as State government employees with all the statutory benefits."
He also presses for interim relief as per para '9' of the O.A., which reads as under:
"a. Pending hearing and final disposal for an order directing respondents to maintain status quo in respect of providing work and salaries to all the current Mohalla Clinic workers as being done for years.
b. Pending hearing and fina final disposal for an order directing the respondents not to fill any post in Arogya Mandirs until the applicants are appointed/absorbed.10
Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 c. Pass any other order or direction as it may deem fit and proper under the present circumstances"
Learned counsel for thethe applicant draws attention the Empanelment of the applicants is valid for the period of another 01 year (i.e., from 01-04 01 04 2025 to 31 31-03-2026) or until the new manpower for Ayushman Arogya Mandir is appointed in serve areas currently covered by Mohalla Clinics whichever is earlier. Any extension shall be solely Clinics as per decision of the Competent Authority. The continuation of empanelment of the applicants is subject to review of performance against parameters approved by compete authority. The applicants agragrees to work at the AAMCs allotted by State Programme Officer (SPO)/CDMO.
Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 8531/2022 dated 11.07.2025 titled Namita Khare and Anr. Vs. University of Delhi and Ors. highlighting para nos. 35, 42 & 43, which read as under:
"35. At the heart of this dispute lies the question whether ad-hoc hoc appointments, such as those held by the petitioners, can be converted into permanent positions through judicial in intervention, despite the existence of a formal recruitment process governed by statutory regulations such as the UGC Regulations, 2018.
*******
42. Another pertinent dimension that emerges in the present case is the language employed in the advertisements issued ssued by the Respondent no.1 for appointing the petitioners. Each advertisement stated that applications were invited "for a period of four months from the date of joining or till the regular incumbent joins duty, whichever is earlier."
This formulation is significant. It indicates, without ambiguity, that the ad-hoc hoc appointments were made not against temporary positions, but against vacant sanctioned posts that awaited regular recruitment. This very construction was interpreted in Deen Bandhu Garg, where this his Court held that such phraseology is indicative of the posts being permanent in nature, and the ad ad-hoc appointment being merely an interim stop stop-gap arrangement. The Court in that case further held that if, despite such 11 Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 framing, no steps are taken to app appoint a regular incumbent for an extended period, and the ad ad-hoc appointee's tenure is simply extended from time to time, the employer cannot be permitted to deny the latter the benefits of regularisation.
43. In the present case, no regular recruitment wa was conducted for a long time, despite repeated extension of the petitioners' tenure against these very posts. This reinforces the presumption that the Respondent no.1 was consciously using ad ad-hoc appointments as a substitute for regular employment, thereby circumventing its obligation to provide fair service conditions. Once it is established that the petitioners were appointed through an open, competitive process, against sanctioned posts, and continued to discharge regular functions for years together, the temporary label attached to their appointment cannot be relied upon to defeat their legitimate claim for equitable treatment."
Issue notice.
Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel, appears on advance service and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He seeks some time to seek appropriate instructions vis-à-vis vis vis grant of interim relief at this stage.
He draws attention to a public notice dated 27.09.2018 and submits that the present arrangement between the applicants and the respondents is based upon an agreement which only stipulates an empanelment on the terms and conditions stipulated therein.
He further draws attention to order dated 10.09.2018 where different rates have been fixed for the empanelled personnel, i.e., Rs. 40/-, 40/ 12/-,, 10/ 10/-, 30/- and Rs.8/-.
He further submits that as per the own averments made by the applicants in O.A., that the employees are apprehensive that despite working continuously for 6 years and their work being satisfactory, the new government purposes to terminat terminate their service and put in their places fresh recruits. Since the fresh recruitments (contractual or regular) will take some time the Delhi Government proposes to shift some of its regular employees from the Delhi Health Services generally to the Ayushman Arogya Mandir to work there until the fresh recruitment is completed.
12Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 He relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Nos.7682-7684 of 2021 titled The Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7682 State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Bhagwan & Ors. highlighting para 10.3, which which reads as under:
"10.3 In the case of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Anr. Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia and Ors., (2021) 8 SCC 784, in paragraph 32, it is observed as under:
under:-
"32. The Central or State Government is empowered to levy evy taxes to meet out the expenses of the State. It is always a conscious decision of the Government as to how much taxes have to be levied so as to not cause excessive burden on the citizens. But the Boards and Corporations have to depend on either their own resources or seek grant from the Central/ State Government, as the case may be, for their expenditures.
Therefore, the grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State." 10.4 As per the settled proposition of law, the Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications. Whether to grant certain benefits to tthe employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences. 10.5 In the present case, WALMI being an autautonomous body, registered under the Societies Registration Act, the employees of WALMI are governed by their own Service Rules and conditions, which specifically do not provide for any pensionary benefits; the Governing Council of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra rashtra Civil Services Rules except the Pension Rules. Therefore, as such a conscious policy decision has been taken not to adopt the Pension Rules applicable to the State Government employees; that the State Government has taken such a policy decision in the year 2005 not to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of the 13 Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 aided institutes, boards, corporations etc.; and the proposal of the then Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI has been specifically turned down by the State Government. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the High Court is not justified in directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI, which is an independent autonomous entity."
He also relies on the decision rendered by the Co Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.32/2024 pronounced on 29.07.2025 titled Monika and Ors. vs. Ors., wherein the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. MCD and Ors., He relies upon the decision rendered b the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).29533/2025 dated 24.06.2025 titled Anupam Chakraborty vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. highlighting para 3, which reads as under:
"3. The petitioner has not been able to establish any right either statutory or constitutional so as to deserve the relief of regularisation. The appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant Rules prevalent in the particular State. Thus, s, a claim for regularisation of a person working on the said post on contractual basis cannot be entertained as such relief would be contrary to law."
The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents is that in the case of empanelment there cannot be a case of regularization. He further relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 11717/2025 dated 06.08.2025 titled Sh. Tarun Gautam And Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr Anr. highlighting the following paras:
"2. The petitioners are working as Pharmacists, Mohalla Clinic Assistants, and Multitask Workers on a contractual basis in Aam Aadmi Mohalla Clinics ["AAMC"] under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ["GNCTD"]. By way of the present petition, they seek directions against their 14 Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 termination and replacement with other contractual employees.
3. A similar writ petition [W.P.(C) 11646/2025] filed by doctors engaged in AAMC, was heard yesterday, i.e. 05.08.2025, and the followfollowing order was passed:-
"1. Issue notice. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioners, 221 in number, are all doctors who were engaged on a contractual basis to work in Aam Aadmi Mohalla Cli Clinics ["AAMC"] under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ["GNCTD"]. Their engagement between the year 2016 and 2025 has been extended from time to time. By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek directions against their terminat termination and replacement with other contractual employees. The reliefs sought are in the following terms:
"(a) To restrain the Respondents from illegal termination of the contractual / empanelment / ad ad-hoc/daily basis employment as Doctors of the Petitioners with Aam Aadmi Mohalla Clinics (AAMCs) and Ayushman Arogya Mandir (AAM) to replace them with the same set of contractual / empanelment / ad-hoc/daily hoc/daily basis employment as Doctors.
(b) Pass any other order/s or directions/s which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances stated above."
3. In the writ petition, it is contended that AAMC has been replaced with the establishment of Ayushman Arogya Mandir ["AAM"]. By an Office Order dated 14.05.2025, it was directed that the existi existing doctors and paramedical staff under AAMC would continue under the existing terms and conditions until 31.03.2026 or until new 15 Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 manpower for AAM is appointed to serve areas currently covered by the Mohalla Clinics, whichever is earlier.
4. A copy of the Agreement greement signed between each of the doctors and GNCTD, to this effect, has been annexed as Annexure P P-4 to the writ petition. It provides for empanelment of a doctor until 31.03.2026 or until new manpower for AAM is appointed.
5. It is submitted by Mr. AmaAmar Nath Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners, that at present, none of the petitioners have received any notice of termination. Further, neither have any advertisements been issued for the recruitment of manpower in AAM, nor have any appointments been made.
6. Having regard to this factual situation, I am of the view that it is not necessary, at this stage, to entertain this writ petition on merits. However, in the event the respondents propose to terminate the petitioners' engagement before 31.03.2026 31.03.2026, on the ground that new manpower has been engaged for AAM, they are directed to give two weeks' notice to the concerned doctors.
7. The writ petition, alongwith pending applications, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
8. All rights and contentions of the parties remain reserved."
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, in the present case, there is a distinction from the case of the doctors, in as much as some of the petitioners have been telephonically instructed not to report to duty. The he matter was passed over to enable Ms. Aliza Alam, learned counsel for GNCTD, to take instructions. She states upon instructions that no decision has been taken by GNCTD to dispense with the services of any of the employees of AAMC.
5. In view of the above e submission, the writ petition, alongwith pending applications, is disposed of with 16 Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 the directions in paragraph 6 of the order dated 05.08.2025."
He further relies upon the decision rendered by the CoCo- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.3817/2022 with O.A. No.123/2023 dated 20.09.2023 titled Kavita with Singh and Anr. vs. District Magistrate South West and Ors. stating that the present posts in the present matter are not civil posts and therefore the jurisdiction of the CAT is not liable.
Be that as it may, may, having heard the counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings of the case, we observe that the issue of whether the applicants are entitled to regularization or not is a larger issue to be addressed after obtaining the appropriate instructions on behalf of the respondents by filing a detailed counter affidavit to that effect.
As on date, it is not in dispute that the contract in question is up to 31.03.2026. We have also perused the decisions referred by the respective counsel.
At this stage, the only issue for consideration is the issuance of interim relief and what interim relief can be accorded. It is an admitted position that the engagement is up to 31.03.2026. Further, a reference has been drawn to para '3' of the judgment titled Sh. Tarun Gautam (supra).
In view of the same, the services of the applicants shall not be dispensed with before 31.03.2026 on the ground that new empanelment has been engaged for AAMC. At least two weeks' notice is required to be given as stipulated in the decision rendered in Sh. Tarun Gautam (supra).
Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply within four weeks. Two weeks' time to file rejoinder thereafter, if so reqired.
Re Re-list on 16.10.2025."
5.3. We have carefully considered the submissions o of the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the respondents. It is noted that the applicants have 17 Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 approached this Tribunal seeking interim protection once again, despite the fact that interim relief had already been granted in their favor vide this Tribunal's order dated 21.08.2025 in associated O.A. No. 3160/2025. By that order, it was clearly directed that the services of the applicants shall not be dispensed with before 31.03.2026 on the ground of new empanelment for AAMC.
5.4. The learned senior counsel for the applicants has sought similar interim protection in favour of the applicants under the present M.A., primarily contending that the respondents have issued a fresh recruitment notification under the Ayushman Arogya Mandir initiative, which could displace the existing applicants. We find that the applicants are attempting to seek a repetition of relief already granted, which is impermissible. We also observe that, in the event the applicants seek protection of their services and reinstatement reinstatement of the 21 employees who were asked to sit at home, the applicants ought to have disclosed the details of such persons. A general pleading, without substantively placing on record the specific particulars of the concerned applicants, cannot be entertained entertained. However, 18 Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025 in the event the respondents have circumvented the orders already passed, the present Miscellaneous Application would not be the appropriate remedy.
5.5. Moreover, the publication of a new recruitment notification under the Ayushman Arogya Mandi Mandir, in our view, constitutes a fresh cause of action. Any grievance arising therefrom is independent and distinct from the reliefs sought in the associated O.A. The applicants cannot circumvent the due process of law by seeking further interim protection under under the guise of a new scheme or policy decision that may affect them. Appropriate remedies in respect of such fresh action lie elsewhere, in accordance with law, if so advised.
5.6. Touching upon the merits of the respective claims would amount to pre-judging pre ging and giving a finding on the new notification, which may cause prejudice to the substantive rights of either side in this Miscellaneous Application, thereby expanding expanding the scope of the reliefs sought in the associated O.A. itself.
19Item No. 42 (C-4) M.A. No. 4281/2025 in OA No. 3160/2025
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In the above circumstances, the present M.A. is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, liable to be rejected. Ordered accordingly.
6.2. The applicants are, however, reminded that nothing contained in this order shall prejudice their right to challenge the fresh recruitment notification in accordance with law.
6.3. M.A. No. 4281/2025 is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/