Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Davinder Kaur vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 24 February, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
R.A. No.19 of 2026
IN
O.A. No.465 of 2019
This the 24th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Davinder Kaur
Aged about 45 years
Designation - Lab Technician
Group- 'C'
W/o Sh. Dharminder Singh
R/o 23/26 AB Tilak Nagar
New Delhi- 110018.
... Review Applicant
(Filed By Advocate: Shri M.K. Singh and K.P. Singh)
VERSUS
1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Through its Director,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-29
2. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Govt. of India, Through Secretary,
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.
....Review Respondents
O R D E R (in circulation)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By way of the present R.A. filed by the Review Applicant (applicant in original lis), seeking review of the order dated 12.12.2025 passed in O.A. No.465/2019, the relevant portion of the same reads as under: -
"
2026.02.25 RAVI KANOJIA 15:55:53+05'30' Item No. /C- 2 RA No.19 of 2026 in OA No.465/2019 "7. At the outset, we observe that the applicant's own pleadings and annexures show repeated ad-hoc/contractual engagements for intermediate periods and not continuous one from 1992 to 2013 and thereafter from 2018 that too explicit outsourcing through M/s BECIL. Where an engagement is routed through an outsourcing or contracting agency, and the remuneration is paid in accordance with that arrangement, the so-called 'principal employer' cannot, in law, be treated as the direct employer for the purposes of seeking regularisation or parity of pay. A claim of direct employment arises only where the applicant demonstrates cogent material to establish that the respondent- institution had, in substance, assumed the attributes of an employer, such as making a direct appointment to a sanctioned post, drawing salary from the regular establishment, exercising administrative and disciplinary control in its own right, or otherwise treating the individual as part of its permanent workforce. In the absence of such indicators of a master-servant relationship, no legal obligation is cast upon the respondent-AIIMS to regularise the engagement or extend the benefits available to its regular employees. Absence of such material, the Tribunal cannot direct regularisation or equal pay by the Respondent - AIIMS.
8. We also find that the applicant's appointments are shown to be intermittent, short ad-hoc stints (1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007 and 2018 through M/s BECIL in the Department of Histopathology of the respondent - AIIMS with an unexplained and long gap thereafter notably between 2007 and 2018, and different departments and posts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions on regularisation presuppose continuous/perennial performance of the same or comparable duties against sanctioned posts, not sporadic short ad-hoc engagements scattered over decades. The facts as stated by the applicant itself make it clear that there is no unbroken continuous service of 10 years in the same cadre/establishment necessary to base a claim for regularisation.
9. The respondents have alleged that the applicant did not possess a qualification recognized under the recruitment rules for the post of Laboratory Technician at the relevant time (the diploma so possessed by the applicant was not recognized. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's jurisprudence distinguishes between procedural irregularity, which in some cases may be regularised, and substantive non-eligibility, which negates entitlement.
10. We further observe that the contention of the applicant is that she was not paid remuneration as per her entitlement during her engagement under the respondent - AIIMS and on the other hand, the respondents contention is that she had been paid remuneration as per the minimum wages for skilled workers in terms with the orders of the Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. However, there is nothing on record placed by the respondents, which substantiate the said contention of the respondents.
11. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra) are entirely different as is evident from the facts of the case in Vinod Kumar (supra), the appellants were in continuous service in capacities of regular employees, performing duties similar to those in permanent posts and selected through similar process as that of regular recruitment. Likewise in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), the appellants were in continuous engagement between 1989 to 1999 as Class-III/IV and in 1999, the Commission sought for sanctioning of two posts of Drivers and ten posts for Peon/Mali/Chowkidar due to 2026.02.25 RAVI KANOJIA 15:55:53+05'30' Item No. /C- 3 RA No.19 of 2026 in OA No.465/2019 administrative exigencies which request was rejected by the State by citing financial constraints. Therefore, the same judgments are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the applicant's claim for regularisation and the same is rejected. However, we direct the respondents to re-examine the applicant's claim regarding the payment made to her during the period of her engagement under AIIMS, whether directly or through the outsourcing agency M/s BECIL, keeping in view the fact that, for certain periods, her engagement was on an ad-hoc basis. It is evident from Annexures A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7 and revision of pay carried out by respondents as per Annexure A- 4 on 18.12.1998 that the applicant was engaged directly by the respondents. The respondents shall also take into consideration the applicable rules, instructions, and guidelines governing such engagements and arrive at remuneration to be paid to the applicant during such intermittent engagements. If any amount is found due and admissible to the applicant upon such reconsideration, the same shall be released to her forthwith. If no dues are found payable, the respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order communicating the basis for such decision. The entire exercise shall be completed within 06 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order."
2. Before delving upon the grounds raised by the review applicant in the instant RA, we deem it fit to refer the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to review its own Order/Judgment:-
(i) In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharmma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 389, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909], there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power 2026.02.25 RAVI KANOJIA 15:55:53+05'30' Item No. /C- 4 RA No.19 of 2026 in OA No.465/2019 which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
(ii) In K. Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India, reported in 1997 (3) SCT 639, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"The right of review is not a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge. The right of review is possible only on limited grounds, mentioned in Order 47 of these Code of Civil Procedure. Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable to the tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have to extended. Otherwise there being no limitation on the power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of finality of a decision. Besides that, the right of review is available if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given can not monitor the case for all times to come. Public policy demands that there should been to law suits and if the view of the tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation."
(iii) In Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers' Assn. & Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 369, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"25. The learned counsel for the State also pointed out that there was no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its own judgment. Even after the microscopic examination of the judgment of the Tribunal we could not find a single reason in the whole judgment as to how the review was justified and for what reasons. No apparent error on the face of the record was pointed, nor was it discussed. Thereby the Tribunal sat as an appellate authority over its own judgment. This was completely impermissible and we agree with the High Court (Justice Sinha) that the Tribunal has traveled out of its jurisdiction to write a second order in the name of reviewing its own judgment. In fact the learned counsel for the appellant did not address us on this very vital aspect."
2026.02.25 RAVI KANOJIA 15:55:53+05'30' Item No. /C- 5 RA No.19 of 2026 in OA No.465/2019
(iv) In State of W. B. Vs. Kamal Sengupta, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"28. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are :
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22 (3) (f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision.
The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier."
(v) In Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2002 (4) SCT 608 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
2026.02.25 RAVI KANOJIA 15:55:53+05'30' Item No. /C- 6 RA No.19 of 2026 in OA No.465/2019
"3.....The Tribunal could have interfered in the matter if the error pointed out, is plain and apparent. But the Tribunal proceeded to re-examine the matter as if it is an original application before it. This is not the scope of review."
3. Having regard to the observations in Order dated 12.12.2025 in OA No.465/2019/2015 as well as the guiding principles of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of scope of review by this Tribunal, as quoted above, we deem it appropriate to consider the grounds raised by the Review Applicant in this RA, which are reproduced as under:-
"The present Review Application is necessitated by the discovery of new and important matter/evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the Applicant or could not be produced by her at the time when the order was passed.
I. Discovery of New Evidence (Note Sheets & RTI Records): Post- judgment, the Applicant found that her counsel has not referred to the Note Sheets and official correspondence under the RTI Act and thus was overlooked by this Hon'ble Tribunal. These documents (Page 6-7 of rejoinder) reveal that the Applicant's case for regularization was indeed processed and recommended for approval by the Competent Authority as far back as 2013/2014, but the file was "misplaced/lost" by the dealing staff.
II. Suppression of Material Facts by Respondents: The Note Sheets show that the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) had specifically instructed the lodging of an FIR regarding the "lost file" of the Applicant. The fact that the Respondents were aware of a lost file that contained recommendations for the Applicant's regularization-yet did not disclose this to the Hon'ble Tribunal, constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record."
III. Parity with Regularized Employees: The discovered records confirm that had the file not been "misplaced," the Applicant would have been regularized along with other Casual/ Ad-hoc Lab Technicians vide Order passed on dated 24.6.2014. Denying review would perpetuate a gross miscarriage of justice where an employee is punished for the administrative lapse (loss of file) of the employer. IV. Continuous Control and Supervision: (Transfer Orders) proves that despite being "outsourced" on paper only recently, the Applicant remained under the direct administrative and disciplinary control of AIIMS, being transferred between departments by the AIIMS Administration, thereby satisfying the "Master-Servant" relationship for regularization.
V. Legal Precedent: The grounds squarely fall within the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr.) (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735, as the discovery of these Note Sheets is a "new and important matter" that would have significantly altered the outcome of the OA.
2026.02.25 RAVI KANOJIA 15:55:53+05'30' Item No. /C- 7 RA No.19 of 2026 in OA No.465/2019 VI. Failure of Counsel: The previous counsel for the Applicant failed to effectively highlight these specific pages during oral arguments. It is settled law that while a party may not always benefit from counsel's mistake, the Court is duty-bound to correct an error when the evidence is already on record but was overlooked.
VII. That there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the Applicant's case was squarely eligible for consideration for regularization in the year 2014 along with her peers and juniors. However, she was illegally deprived of this benefit solely due to the gross negligence and admitted fault of the Respondents' department in losing her regularization file. It is a settled principle of law that no person can be penalized for the mistake or negligence of the administration.
VIII. That the Hon'ble Tribunal in Para 9 of the order dated 12.12.2025 overlooked the critical fact that at the time of the Applicant's initial joining in 1992-1993, the existing practice and requirement for the post of Lab Technician was a Diploma in the relevant field. There was no mandatory requirement for a Bachelor's degree at that material time. The Applicant fulfilled all requisite criteria as per the prevailing standards during her decades of continuous service. IX. That notwithstanding the fact that only a diploma was required at the time of entry, the Applicant has diligently upgraded her skills and possesses a Bachelor's degree (B.Sc.) as on today being graduated in the year 2000. Therefore, the Respondents' objection regarding "substantive non-eligibility" is factually and legally unsustainable, and its acceptance in the final judgment constitutes an error that warrants review.
X. That by regularizing others peers and juniors in 20 14 while excluding the Applicant due to a "lost file," the Respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner, violating the Applicant's fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This aspect was not effectively considered in the order under review. XI. ERROR IN APPLYING THE "CONTROL TEST" That the Hon'ble Tribunal in Para 7 held that AIIMS did not assume the attributes of an employer. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. The January 2026 Duty Roster proves that AIIMS exercises the highest degree of administrative control by assigning the Applicant to conduct Official MBBS Examinations. An "outsourced" contractor (BECIL) has no role in academic examinations; only a direct master (AIIMS) can authorize such technical duties.
XII. INCONSISTENCY REGARDING "INTERMITTENT SERVICE" FINDING: That the finding in Para 8 regarding "intermittent stints" 1s contradicted by the record. These sheets prove the Applicant is a permanent fiXture in the department's daily operations. The perceived "gaps" are merely periods for which the Respondents failed to produce records, while the Applicant has now produced contemporary proof of ongoing, full-time engagement. XIII. FRONTLINE SERVICE AS A GROUND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF: That the Applicant's "excellent" frontline service during COVID-19, as admitted by the Recruitment Cell and HODs, entitles her to the benefit of the "frontline worker" policies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in several recent judgments that employees who risked their lives during the pandemic should be considered for regularization with preference. This aspect was neither argued nor considered.
2026.02.25 RAVI KANOJIA 15:55:53+05'30' Item No. /C- 8 RA No.19 of 2026 in OA No.465/2019 XIV. SHAM AND CAMOUFLAGE ARRANGEMENT: The internal transfer orders (e.g., Office Order dated 21.06.2019) prove that while the salary is routed through BECIL, the power of posting and transfer and administratively control is exercised exclusively by the AIIMS Recruitment Cell. As per the settled law in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, such an arrangement is a "sham and camouflage" to deny the benefits of regularization.
17. These grounds, taken individually and collectively, establish that the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, non-consideration of material evidence, misappreciation of facts, and violation of settled legal principles, thereby necessitating review in the interest of justice."
4. We have carefully examined the grounds raised by the Review Applicant in the present Review Application, as noted above, and find that the same, in substance, seek a rehearing of the matter on merits.
Such an exercise amounts to re-arguing the case afresh, which is impermissible within the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that the Order under Review does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction. Consequently, the present Review Application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in circulation.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2026.02.25
RAVI KANOJIA
15:55:53+05'30'