Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Kripal Yadav vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 9 August, 2024
(Reserved on 16.07.2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD.
Dated : This the 09th Day of August, 2024
Original Application No. 330/0528 of 2017
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Ram Kripal Yadav, a/a 51 years son of Sri Sahdeo Yadav, resident of Beli
Road, Allahabad, at present working as Driver in the office of I.C.M.R.
(Human Reproduction Research Centre), Department of Obst. and
Gynecology, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad.
.................Applicant.
By Adv : Shri S.C. Srivastava.
VERSUS
1. Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, Post Box
No.4506, New Delhi through it Director General.
2. Director General, Indian Council, Medical Research, Ansari Nagar,
Post Box No.4506, New Delhi.
3. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance New
Delhi.
4. Administrative Officer, office of Director General, Indian Council of
Medical Research, Ansari Marg, New Delhi.
5. Principal, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad.
6. Professor and Head of Department, Obst. and Gynecology, Moti Lal
Nehru Medical College, Allahabad.
.................Respondents
By Adv: Shri Mahendra Bahadur Singh
ORDER
The present Original Application was filed by the applicant on 02.05.2017, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents' authorities to consider SUSHIL KUMAR 2024.08.12 12:42:48+05'30' SRIVASTAVA Page No.2 the applicant's regularization from the date of his initial appointment
2. The brief facts of the case are encapsulated as follows:
(i) The applicant was appointed to the position of clerk on 07.07.1981, following a selection process conducted by respondent No. 6. The applicant commenced service on 28.02.1981 and has consistently performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. Despite the temporary nature of his appointment, the applicant's services have not been discontinued, and he remains employed without interruption in the college of respondent No. 5, under the direct supervision of respondent No. 6. His performance has been satisfactory, with no complaints.
(ii) The project under which the applicant was appointed as a clerk has continued without interruption since his appointment. Respondent No. 2 issued a circular letter on 07.07.1981 stating that employees of the Human Reproduction Research Centre, where the applicant works, should receive allowances equivalent to those of employees at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. The applicant has continued to benefit from these facilities.
(iii) Furthermore, a letter dated 21.12.1982 from respondent No. 2 to respondents No. 5 and 6 confirmed that the ICMR project staff should receive pay allowances according to the rules of respondent No. 5's institution. This supports the view that the ICMR project, initiated at respondent No. 5's institution, was intended for permanent purposes and provided facilities similar to those available to permanent medical college staff. With the implementation of the IVth Pay Commission from SUSHIL KUMAR 2024.08.12 12:42:48+05'30' SRIVASTAVA Page No.3 01.01.1986, pay scales, including that of the applicant, were revised, as evidenced by a circular dated 30.12.1987.
(iv) The applicant has served continuously under the direct control of respondents No. 5 and 6 since 1981. Given the project's ongoing nature and the applicant's 36 years of uninterrupted service, it is argued that the project has achieved a de facto permanent status. Consequently, it is reasonable to argue that the applicant's services should be regularized. Evidence from respondent No. 6 shows that the applicant received increments and a promotional pay scale after 10 years of satisfactory service, and his pay was adjusted in the revised scale.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a counter affidavit on 13.10.2023 refuting the averments made in the Original Application and stated that:-
(i) The Human Reproductive Research Centres (HRRC) are identified by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for research in human reproduction across various government hospitals in India. These centers are operated by the state government hospitals, and the ICMR's role is limited to providing financial support. The engagement, recruitment, and management of staff at these centers fall under the purview of the state government hospitals, not the ICMR.
(ii) The Head of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at the concerned state government hospitals is responsible for managing the HRRC centers, including staff recruitment and management, in accordance with state government rules and regulations. The ICMR does not have a role in the recruitment or management of HRRC staff.
SUSHIL KUMAR 2024.08.12 12:42:48+05'30' SRIVASTAVA Page No.4
(iii) The engagement and management of staff for the HRRC centers are entirely the responsibility of the host government hospitals. The ICMR cannot be held liable for regularizing the engagement of HRRC staff or placing them on ICMR's payroll. There is no fundamental right for temporary or contractual staff to be absorbed into permanent service.
(iv) The applicant was engaged as a clerk on a contractual basis as per the letter dated 07.07.1981 issued by respondent No. 6. The appointment was for a project that was not intended to be permanent. The project, as outlined in the appointment letter, was for a limited period and could be extended but not continued beyond the project duration.
(v) The applicant's claim for regularization is unfounded since the recruitment did not follow relevant recruitment rules, and there were no sanctioned posts for such appointments. The applicant cannot claim regularization for a non-existent post.
(vi) The applicant did not approach the Hon'ble Tribunal for regularization until 05.05.2017, a delay of 36 years, which is excessive and constitutes laches. Such inordinate delay renders the Original Application liable to be dismissed.
(vii) Regularization is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after an inordinate delay. The Original Application filed 36 years after the cause of action, is severely time-barred and thus liable to be dismissed.
(viii) The applicant has not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands. The current application appears to be a result of reconciled afterthoughts, and the cases referred to by the applicant were decided on a personal basis, not applicable in rem.
SUSHIL KUMAR 2024.08.12 12:42:48+05'30' SRIVASTAVA Page No.5
(ix) The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 464 emphasized that relief should not be granted to individuals who have been lax in asserting their rights. The doctrine of laches applies where there is acquiescence and unreasonable delay.
(x) In Bhoop Singh v. UOI (AIR 1992 SC 1414), the Supreme Court held that government servants must approach the court for relief within a reasonable period to avoid disrupting administrative setups. An unexplained delay of several years is a strong ground for denying relief.
(xi) In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Ghanshyam Dass (2011 (4) SC 364), it was reiterated that delayed claims would not be entertained, and rights cannot be asserted after long inaction.
(xii) The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006 (4) SCC
1) established that regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment. The government is not obligated to make temporary or casual employees permanent if they were not appointed following due process.
4. Heard Shri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Mahendra Bahadur Singh assisted by Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. The material available on record has also been thoroughly examined and considered.
5. The submissions of the leaned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant commenced his service on 28.02.1981 and has consistently performed his duties satisfactorily. Despite the initial temporary nature of his appointment, the applicant's service has been uninterrupted, and he continues to work in the college of SUSHIL KUMAR 2024.08.12 12:42:48+05'30' SRIVASTAVA Page No.6 respondent No. 5 under the direct supervision of respondent No. 6. The project under which the applicant was appointed has continued without interruption, and allowances equivalent to those of permanent staff at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, have been provided to him. Additionally, a letter from respondent No. 2 dated 21.12.1982 confirmed that the ICMR project staff should receive pay allowances in accordance with the rules of respondent No. 5's institution, indicating that the project was intended for permanent purposes. With the implementation of the IVth Pay Commission from 01.01.1986, the applicant's pay scale was revised. Given the continuous nature of the project and the applicant's 36 years of uninterrupted service, it is argued that the project has attained a de facto permanent status, warranting the regularization of the applicant's services.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant cited the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.966/2016 (Smt Shobha Rani Srivastava vs. Union of India & Ors.) and submitted the case of the applicant is identical to OA No.966/2016.
7. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Human Reproductive Research Centres (HRRC) are identified by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for research in human reproduction, and these centers are operated by state government hospitals. The ICMR's role is limited to providing financial support, and the recruitment and management of HRRC staff fall under the jurisdiction of the state government hospitals. The Head of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at these hospitals is responsible for managing the HRRC centers, including staff recruitment. The ICMR is not responsible for the recruitment or management of HRRC staff. The applicant was engaged on a contractual basis for a project that was not intended to be SUSHIL KUMAR 2024.08.12 12:42:48+05'30' SRIVASTAVA Page No.7 permanent, and the project could only be extended but not continued beyond its duration. The claim for regularization is therefore unfounded as the recruitment did not follow relevant rules and there were no sanctioned posts for such appointments. Additionally, the applicant's delay of 36 years in approaching the Hon'ble Tribunal constitutes laches and renders the application time-barred. The counsel emphasized that regularization is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after such a prolonged delay. Citing precedents such as Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 464 and Bhoop Singh v. UOI (AIR 1992 SC 1414), the counsel argued that relief should not be granted for delayed claims and that the regularization cannot be used as a mode of recruitment as established by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 1).
8. After considering the submissions of both counsels and the material available on record as well as the order placed by the applicant in support of this case, the Tribunal is of the view that while the applicant's long tenure and continuous service under the ICMR project demonstrate a commitment to his duties, there are significant procedural and jurisdictional concerns raised by the respondents.
9. The respondents have asserted that the Human Reproductive Research Centres (HRRC) are managed by state government hospitals, and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) only provides financial support. The management of staff at these centers falls under the purview of the respective state government hospitals, and the ICMR does not have a role in their recruitment or regularization.
SUSHIL KUMAR 2024.08.12 12:42:48+05'30' SRIVASTAVA Page No.8
10. However, given the substantial length of uninterrupted service provided by the applicant and the argument that the project has achieved a de facto permanent status, the Tribunal recognizes the merit in reviewing the applicant's case further.
11. Therefore, considering the arguments and precedents advanced by learned counsel for both parties, a direction was given to the applicant to move a fresh representation before the respondents detailing all his grievances along with relevant documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the said representation of the applicant by passing a detailed reasoned and speaking order within further three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation. While deciding the case of the applicant, the respondents should also consider the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 966/2016 and evaluate the applicant's circumstances in accordance with the principles and findings established in that order. It is further, directed that If the applicant's circumstances are found to be identical to those of similarly situated individuals who were granted benefits, the applicant shall be afforded the same benefits. However, it is important to acknowledge that regularization is not an inherent right and cannot be claimed after an extended delay. Moreover, as established by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 1), regularization cannot be used as a mode of recruitment. Therefore, while reconsidering the applicant's case, the respondents must ensure adherence to these legal principles and precedents.
13. The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified SUSHIL KUMAR 2024.08.12 12:42:48+05'30' SRIVASTAVA Page No.9 copy of this order along with the representation submitted by the applicant.
14. All pending M.As (Miscellaneous Applications), if any, are considered disposed of. The registry will take the necessary steps to remove the M.As.
15 Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR 2024.08.12 12:42:48+05'30' SRIVASTAVA