Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satish Kumar Yadav vs Gnctd on 17 December, 2025
1 OA No.3642/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.3642/2024
This the 17th day of December, 2025
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
SH. SATISH KUMAR YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 60 YRS,
S/O SH. SAJJAN SINGH YADAV,
DESIGNATION- PRESENTLY RELIEVED on 28/06/2024
FROM THE POST OF CONTRACTUAL CRAFT INSTRUCTOR
(ON FULL TIME CONTRACT BASIS) (GROUP-C) FROM THE
O/o ITI, PUSA, GNCTD, DELHI-110012,
R/o H. NO. 163, GALI HANUMAN MANDIR WALI,
HAIDER PUR VILLAGE,
DELHI-110088.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Varun Mudgil)
Versus
1. GNCT OF DELHI,
Through Its Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi-110002.
2. DEPARTMENT OF TRAINING & TECHNICAL
EDUCATION, GNCT OF DELHI,
Through Its Secretary,
Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura, Delhi-110034
3. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, PUSA, GNCTD,
Through Its Principal,
Pusa, New Delhi-110012.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed68
8256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi,
SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b
22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Dutt Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.14 16:24:26+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
2 OA No.3642/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"a) Direct the Respondents for the implementation of the Judgment, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 03/08/2021, in the matter of Janardan Sharma vs GNCT of Delhi Through It's Chief Secretary & Ors., WP(C)/11154/2019, in true letter and spirit by the Respondents, for extending of the benefits of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the Applicant who worked as Contractual Craft Instructor (on full time contract basis) under the Govt, in, Pusa of the Department of Training & Technical Education, GNCT of Delhi; &/or
b) Issue an appropriate order, or direction to the Respondent No.2 & 3 to calculate and release the payment of the Gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (as amended up to date) along with interest @6% p.a., to the Applicant;
c) To award cost of the litigation to the Applicant."
2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The present applicant joined as Full-time contractual Craft Instructor (Turner) in ITI, Pusa, New Delhi with effect from 1.1.2009. This appointment was offered on the basis of walk-in interview for which the respondents published advertisement in leading national newspapers on 31.7.2008. The contractual appointment got renewed year after year by giving breaks during the summer vacation, for each fresh academic session. The last appointment letter for such Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed68 8256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b 22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.14 16:24:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 3 OA No.3642/2024 contractual appointment was issued by the respondents on 13.10.2023 which ended on 28.6.2024.
2.2 The applicant submitted an application dated 6.3.2024 to Respondent No.3 to grant him the benefit of Gratuity in terms of the statutory provision under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The respondents have not responded to his representation as yet. Being aggrieved, he has filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned relief.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents who entered appearance and filed their counter reply, to which the applicant chose not to file any rejoinder.
4. Submission by learned counsel for the applicant 4.1 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in 2009, the Parliament amended the definition of word "employee" under Section 2 (e) of the said Act and included teachers to get the benefit of Gratuity with effect from 3.4.1997. The applicant qualified as a teacher, as his appointment letter stipulates that he is appointed as a contractual Instructor in ITI. Instructors are teachers.
4.2 The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the artificial breaks given to the contractual Instructors have been ignored in catena of judgments by various courts, Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed68 8256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= including the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The latest case is titled 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b 22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt DuttReason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.14 16:24:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 4 OA No.3642/2024 Janardan Sharma Vs GNCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary in WP (C) No. 11154 of 2019 [(2021) SCC Online Del 389]. In paragraph 9 of the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that:
"9. From the above, it is clear that the Act does not draw a distinction between a fulltime employee / a part time employee /ad hoc employee etc. In other words, as stated by the Court, the Section does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability i.e. regular, ad-hoc, part time, casual etc. The petitioner being an employee, though according to the respondents Part Time, he is still entitled to gratuity. He worked for almost 28-29 years but was denied the benefit of pension as he was not a regular employee. In fact, on that ground, it appears he was denied the benefit of the scheme for payment of gratuity as prevailing in the department. Being a so called "Part Time Employee", if he is not entitled to gratuity under the scheme prevailing in the department, the petitioner is entitled to gratuity under the Act of 1972. He cannot be left without means of sustenance, post retirement. In this regard, I would like to refer to paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in National Bal Bhawan (supra) as under:
"10. During the course of hearing, Mr.Rajappa also submitted that the respondents were paid only the consolidated wages besides conveyance. The impugned order takes note of the consolidated salaries of the respondents as Rs.300-20-400 p.m. w.e.f. 11.11.1986, Rs.400-20-500 p.m. w.e.f. 15.06.1987, Rs.400-20-500 p.m. w.e.f. 15.05.1990, Rs.200/- p.m. w.e.f. 11.05.1984, Rs.200/- p.m. w.e.f.
05.11.1983, Rs.200/- p.m. w.e.f. 11.05.1984, Rs.200/- p.m. w.e.f. 16.05.1983. It would thus be seen, for few of the respondents, who are equally stated to be part time employees, the petitioner has provided for the increments, apparently, on yearly basis. All of them, undisputedly, have rendered their uninterrupted services for more than five (05) years to be eligible for the gratuity under the Act, 1972. Most of them have rendered services for almost 30 years or more and they have come to be declined the entitlement of gratuity, that too, by a Society, which is stated to be wholly funded by the Central Government. They are not entitled to pension as they are not the regular employees under the Central or the State Government nor the society on its part is shown to have any such scheme. Fact however remains that the payment of gratuity is a Statutory liability under the Act, 1972. Thus, for the Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= respondents services having been availed for over the 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed68 8256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b 22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.14 16:24:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 5 OA No.3642/2024 years, most of them having been the employees of the petitioner for decades, denial of gratuity to them, is to leave them in lurch, when they superannuated. What to talk of bread and butter, they are left even without bread, a basic necessity for survival. It is a reflection of total insensitivity to their just cause, which, the petitioner has failed to advert to, ignoring the genesis of the beneficial legislation like the Act, 1972."
(emphasis supplied) 4.3 Drawing attention of the Tribunal to the aforementioned judgment, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the present applicant is entitled for the benefit of payment of gratuity as he has completed more than five years of regular service with the respondents. The artificial breaks during vacations should be ignored and the appointment of the applicant should be treated as regular service from 2009.
5. Submission by learned counsel for the Respondents 5.1 The learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, states that the present applicant is not entitled for payment of gratuity as he has not completed regular service of five years at a stretch with the respondents. He refers to the sample appointment letter dated 13.10.2023, according to which the applicant was offered contractual appointment from 13.10.2023 till 28.06.2024. The previous appointment letters contained similar offer of contractual appointment for limited period. As the applicant has not rendered continuous service of five Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed68 8256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b 22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.14 16:24:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 6 OA No.3642/2024 years with the respondents, he is not entitled for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 5.2 The learned counsel for the respondents further refers to clause (iv) of the offer of contractual appointment letter dated 13.10.2023, which stipulates that:
"(iv) The appointee shall not be entitled to any benefits of Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity, Medical Attendance and Treatment, Govt. residential accommodation or any other benefits and concessions admissible to Govt.
Servants."
6. Analysis 6.1 The issue regarding whether teachers, including Instructors, are included in the definition of employees has been admitted by both the parties referring to the amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was affected in 2009. The short issue which remains for adjudication is whether artificial breaks given to the teachers at the end of each academic session needs to be ignored to consider the services of such Instructors as regular and continuous from their initial contractual appointment. 6.2 In Bhagwati Prasad And Ors vs Delhi State Mineral Development....., 1990 (1) SCC 361. Paragraph 6 of the judgment states:
"6. .......In our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than Sunita three months between the period of termination and re-Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed68 8256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b Dutt appointment that period may be excluded in the 22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.14 16:24:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 7 OA No.3642/2024 computation of the three years period. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three years' service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the senior-most workmen should be regularised with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularised in a phased manner, before April 1, 1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing orders."
6.3 Similarly, the Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 611 in Paragraph 18 held:
"We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and re-appointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, co- terminus with the scheme. The circular dated 17.3.1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be is quashed."
6.4 The Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal (Circuit Sitting at Portblair) in Bhanumati vs. Union of India and others, OA No.120/AN/2016 dated 3.6.2019 allowed the OA with direction to the respondents therein to regularize the ad hoc service of the applicant condoning the artificial breaks on account of summer vacations and also ordered that the applicant was liable to get the benefit of ad hoc service for the purpose of pay and as such, the service rendered on ad hoc basis with artificial breaks is liable to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pay fixation/ regularization ignoring the artificial breaks.
Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed68 8256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b 22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.14 16:24:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 8 OA No.3642/2024
7. Conclusion 7.1 Taking the ratio of the aforementioned judgments and considering the fact that Courts have consistently held that such artificial breaks need to be ignored while considering granting of service benefits, we are of the considered opinion that the present applicant is entitled to get the benefit of payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended from time to time.
7.2 Accordingly, we allow the present Original Application with the following direction:
(i) The competent authority amongst the respondents shall pay gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with interest @ 6% p.a. to the applicant.
(ii) This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. No order as to costs.
9. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'SD'
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed68 8256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b 22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.14 16:24:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0