Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rekha vs Gnctd on 13 April, 2023
1 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.11/2023
CP No.79/2023
MA No. 632/2023, 784/2023, 26/2023, 27/2023
With
OA No.12/2023
CP No.48/2023
MA No.28/2023 & 29/2023
OA No.559/2023
OA No.560/2023
OA No.561/2023
Order reserved on: 10.03.2023
Order pronounced on: 13.04.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
OA No.11/2023
1. Syed Mohd Shajer
Aged about 30 years, (Group-B)
S/o Syed Amirul Hasan,
R/o Bhandsar, Bhansar, Ambedkar Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-224146.
2. Reena Paul,
D/o Satnam Singh
R/o C-18/F, DDA Flats, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067.
3. Reena Singh
D/o Vijay Bahadur Singh
R/o 231,9, Tukmir Pur,
Ext. Tukmir Pur, Dayalpur, New Delhi-110094.
4. Rohit Chaudhary,
S/o Uday Vir Singh
R/o A-42, Indira Enclave Sadarpur Road,
Govindpuram Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh 201013.
5. Rahul Singh
S/o Ravinder Singh
R/o 82, Khizrabad,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025.
2 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
6. Umesh Kumar Tripathi,
S/o Chandrika Prasad Tripathi,
R/o Ward No.1, Sariya, Ramnagar Satna,
Madhya Pradesh 485881.
7. Shalini
D/o Bal Krishan
R/o B-12A/17D Dhawalgiri Apartment
Sector-34, Noida Budha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh 201301.
8. Ishwar Chandra Singh
S/o Hira Lal Singh
R/o 19/33, 2nd floor, Near J.J.Colony,
Rohini, Sector-24, Raja Pur Kalan,
North West Delhi, New Delhi-110085.
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. K.C.Mittal, learned senior counsel with
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav and
Ms. Jasvinder Kaur)
Versus
1. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle,
Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi-110054.
2. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
I.P.Estate, Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.
3. The Medical Director,
GTB Hospital, GNCTD,
Dilshad Garden, Shahdara,
Delhi-110095.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand with Mr. Sunil Bansal and
Mr. Girish C.Jha)
CP No.79/2023
1. Syed Mohd Shajer
Aged about 30 years, (Group-B)
S/o Syed Amirul Hasan,
R/o Bhandsar, Bhansar,
3 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
Ambedkar Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-224146.
2. Reena Paul,
D/o Satnam Singh
R/o C-18/F, DDA Flats,
Munirka,
New Delhi-110067.
3. Reena Singh
D/o Vijay Bahadur Singh
R/o 231,9, Tukmir Pur,
Ext. Tukmir Pur, Dayalpur,
New Delhi-110094.
4. Rohit Chaudhary,
S/o Uday Vir Singh
R/o A-42, Indira Enclave
Sadarpur Road,
Govindpuram Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh 201013.
5. Rahul Singh
S/o Ravinder Singh
R/o 82, Khizrabad,
New Friends Colony,
New Delhi-110025.
6. Umesh Kumar Tripathi,
S/o Chandrika Prasad Tripathi,
R/o Ward No.1, Sariya,
Ramnagar Satna,
Madhya Pradesh 485881.
7. Shalini
D/o Bal Krishan
R/o B-12A/17D Dhawalgiri Apartment
Sector-34, Noida Budha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh 201301.
8. Ishwar Chandra Singh
S/o Hira Lal Singh
R/o 19/33, 2nd floor, Near J.J.Colony,
Rohini, Sector-24, Raja Pur Kalan,
North West Delhi, New Delhi-110085.
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. K.C.Mittal, learned senior counsel with
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav and
Ms. Jasvinder Kaur)
4 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
Versus
1. Naresh Kumar, Chief Secretary,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Dr. Nutan Mundeja,
Director General Health Services,
Delhi Arogya Kosh
3rd floor, DGD Building, S-1 School Block,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
3. Dr. Suresh Kumar Medical Director, LNH,
Linked Medical Director, GTB Hospital,
JLN Marg, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.
4. Dr. Anil Yadav Head of Office,
Additional Medical Superintendent (Admin.)
GTB Hospital, GNCTD,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.
5. Dr. Dhananjay Kumar,
Medical Officer In-charge (Security),
GTB Hospital, GNCTD,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand with Mr. Sunil Bansal and
Mr. Girish C.Jha)
OA No.12/2023
1. Anamika Pandey
W/o Amit Pandey
R/o 4/CHH/29, Behind Mayank School,
Vigyan Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan-324005.
2. Pooja Gulia,
D/o Rajinder Kumar
R/o H.No.17A/37, Staff Quarter,
Major Dhyanchand Stadium, N.D.M.C.
New Delhi.
5 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
3. Khushboo Masih,
D/o Munawar Masih,
R/o H.No.194, Near Sirohi Hospital,
Sector-3, Ballabgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana-121004.
4. Jaan Mohammad
S/o Anwar Hussain
R/o 99, Silavatpura, Indore City-2,
Madhya Pradesh-452002.
5. Preeti Sachdeva
D/o H.K.Schdeva,
R/o 39/12 Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060.
6. Nikita Tanwar
D/o Ghanshyam Tanwar,
R/o R-431, VTC, Jawala Puri,
New Delhi-110087.
7. Babita Kumari,
D/o Suresh Chand,
R/o B-283, MIG DDA Flats,
East of Loni Road,
Shahdara, Nand Nagri,
New Delhi-110093.
8. Kainat Ishteyaque
D/o Mohd. Ishteyaque,
R/o 293/428 Lucknow,
Lucknow Chowk,
Ittar {radesj-226003.
9. Rahul Rana
S/o Pardeep Kumar
R/o 55, Singhana,
Singhana (43) Jind,
Haryana-126112.
10. Neha Knogiya
D/o Om Parkash
R/o3451. Dariba Pan, Near Avtar Hotel,
Paharganj,
Swami Ram Tirath Nagar,
New Delhi-110055.
11. Syed Ishan Ahmad
S/o Syed Irfan Ahmad,
6 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
R/o Flat no.11S/F Prop No.11
KH No. 830/826, K-2 Block,
Mahipalpur, Delhi-110037.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. K.C.Mittal, learned senior counsel with
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav and
Ms. Jasvinder Kaur)
Versus
1. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle,
Civil Lines, New Delhi,
Delhi-110054.
2. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
I.P.Estate, Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.
3. The Medical Director,
Lok Nayak Hospital, GNCTD,
JLN Marg, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand with Mr. Sunil Bansal and
Mr. Girish C.Jha)
CP No.48/2023
1. Anamika Pandey
W/o Amit Pandey
R/o 4/CHH/29, Behind Mayank School,
Vigyan Nagar, Kota,
Rajasthan-324005.
2. Pooja Gulia,
D/o Rajinder Kumar
R/o H.No.17A/37, Staff Quarter,
Major Dhyanchand Stadium,
N.D.M.C.
New Delhi.
3. Khushboo Masih,
D/o Munawar Masih,
R/o H.No.194, Near Sirohi Hospital,
7 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
Sector-3, Ballabgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana-121004.
4. Jaan Mohammad
S/o Anwar Hussain
R/o 99, Silavatpura, Indore City-2,
Madhya Pradesh-452002.
5. Preeti Sachdeva
D/o H.K.Schdeva,
R/o 39/12 Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060.
6. Nikita Tanwar
D/o Ghanshyam Tanwar,
R/o R-431, VTC, Jawala Puri,
New Delhi-110087.
7. Babita Kumari,
D/o Suresh Chand,
R/o B-283, MIG DDA Flats,
East of Loni Road,
Shahdara, Nand Nagri,
New Delhi-110093.
8. Kainat Ishteyaque
D/o Mohd. Ishteyaque,
R/o 293/428 Lucknow,
Lucknow Chowk,
Ittar {radesj-226003.
9. Rahul Rana
S/o Pardeep Kumar
R/o 55, Singhana,
Singhana (43) Jind,
Haryana-126112.
10. Neha Knogiya
D/o Om Parkash
R/o3451. Dariba Pan, Near Avtar Hotel,
Paharganj,
Swami Ram Tirath Nagar,
New Delhi-110055.
11. Syed Ishan Ahmad
S/o Syed Irfan Ahmad,
R/o Flat no.11S/F Prop No.11
KH No. 830/826, K-2 Block,
8 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
Mahipalpur,
Delhi-110037.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. K.C.Mittal, learned senior counsel with
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav and
Ms. Jasvinder Kaur)
Versus
1. Naresh Kumar, Chief Secretary,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Dr. Nutan Mundeja,
Director General Health Services,
Delhi Arogya Kosh
3rd floor, DGD Building, S-1 School Block,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
3. Dr. Suresh Kumar Medical Director,
Lok Nayak Hospital, GNCTD,
JLN Marg, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand with Mr. Sunil Bansal and
Mr. Girish C.Jha)
OA No.559/2023
1. Sonam Gupta
Aged about 31 years
W/o Ankit Gupta,
R/o Flat no.F 004, Oxford Square Eco Village 3,
Supertech, Sector-16B Greater Noida,
West Roza Yadkubpur,
Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-201009.
2. Ritu Kapkoti, aged about 32 years
D/o Narender Kumar
R/o Flat no.25-26, Non-Teaching Flats,
9 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
Dhakka Village
Near Mukherjee Nagar,
New Delhi-110009.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. K.C.Mittal, learned senior counsel with
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav and
Ms. Jasvinder Kaur)
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
I.P.Estate, Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle,
Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi-110054.
3. Director General Health Services,
Delhi Arogya Kosh,
3rd floor, DGD Building,
S-1, School Block,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
4. The Medical Superintendent,
Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan,
GNCTD,
New Delhi-110032.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand with Mr. Sunil Bansal and
Mr. Girish C.Jha)
OA NO.560/2023
1. Rekha aged about 41 years
W/o Lal Bahadur
R/o H.No.1083,
Housing Board Colony, Sector-62,
Ballabhgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana-121004.
Presently in Delhi
Group „B‟ Level 8
2. Romila Kurya aged about 31 years
S/o Desh Raj
10 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
R/o E-84 S/F,
Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar,
West Delhi, Delhi-110059
Group „ B‟ Level 8
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. K.C.Mittal, learned senior counsel with
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav and
Ms. Jasvinder Kaur)
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
I.P.Estate, Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle,
Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi-110054.
3. Director General Health Services,
Delhi Arogya Kosh,
3rd floor, DGD Building,
S-1, School Block,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
4. The Medical Superintendent,
DDU Hospital, GNCTD,
Hari Nagar,
New Delhi-110064.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand with Mr. Sunil Bansal and
Mr. Girish C.Jha)
OA No.561/2023
1. Shikhil Mehra, aged about 36 years
S/o Vijay Kumar Mehra,
R/o BH-675, Near Mother Dairy,
Shalimar Bagh, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110088.
2. Swati Goel, aged about 31 years
D/o Ravi K.Goel,
R/o J-116, 3rd floor,
Reserve Bank Enclave,
11 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
Paschim Vihar, West Delhi,
Delhi-110063.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. K.C.Mittal, learned senior counsel with
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav and
Ms. Jasvinder Kaur)
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
I.P.Estate, Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle,
Civil Lines, New Delhi,
Delhi-110054.
3. Director General Health Services,
Delhi Arogya Kosh,
3rd floor, DGD Building,
S-1, School Block,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
4. The Medical Superintendent,
Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, GNCTD,
Pitampura,
New Delhi-110034.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand with Mr. Sunil Bansal and
Mr. Girish C.Jha)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J) "Ask no questions, and you'll be told no lies." ~Charles Dickens, Great Expectations, Chapter 2, Page
14. Most people don't really want the truth. They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth. 12 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these Miscellaneous Applications (MAs), Contempt Petitions (CPs) and Original Applications (OAs), with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they were taken up for adjudication and heard together. We, therefore, proceed to dispose them off by this common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, facts as narrated in MA No.632/2023, CP No.79/2023 and OA No.11/2023 are extracted.
MA No.632/2023
4. The reliefs sought in the present MA are as under:
"a) Restraining the respondents, their agent and employees from preventing the applicants to enter the hospital premises and discharge their duties. Further allow the applicants to mark their attendance and not to disengage or replace applicants by outsourcing.
b) Stay the operation and order dated 19.01.2023 and pay the arrears of their salaries which not have been paid so far.
c) Such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the facts of the circumstances of the present case.
d) Pass such other/further order/direction(s) which this Hon‟ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case."
5. The sum and substance of the present MA seeking aforesaid relief is based on the submissions made in the OA drawing analogy from an Interim Order dated 03.01.2023 in OA No.11/2023. It has been averred that it is also submitted 13 OA No. 11/2023 and batch that the vacancies, sanctioned posts, and the work for the respective posts are available in respective hospitals but the Respondents in an arbitrary and illegal manner, in contravention to law and in complete violation of the order of this Tribunal, restrained the applicants from discharging their respective duties. It is submitted that the applicants had been duly recruited and have been continuing and discharging their duties and responsibilities and they can neither be discontinued nor be replaced by deploying persons from outsourcing. The applicants submit that no notice of discontinuation has been served upon them. The interim order dated 03.01.2023 was passed after the respondent submitted to this Tribunal that they do not have any plans to remove or replace the applicants and proposals for extension of the services of the said Superintendents (Hospital Managers) who are in service, have also been sent to the competent authority. On 23rd January 2023 the applicants came to know about the order dated 19.01.2023, which has yet not been officially communicated, which on the face of it is arbitrary, unjust and contemptuous. The respondent's decision to resort to appointing persons for the vacancies against which the applicants are working is an act towards non-compliance of the directions of this Tribunal, deliberating and intentionally, despite the clear-cut statement made on their behalf, as such they have committed contempt of this 14 OA No. 11/2023 and batch Tribunal. The order dated 19.01.2023, has also been stayed by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 01.02.2023. The respondents are not allowing applicants to enter and discharge duties despite the order of this Tribunal dated 03.01.2023, rather issued the order dated 19.01.2023 to outsource the applicants. The applicants have filed this application for issuance of interim order/direction, protecting their interest. The attention of this Tribunal is also taken to order dated 01.02.2023 issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.297/2023, whereby the operation of order dated 19.01.2023 has been stayed.
6. This MA is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondents though they have not filed any reply to the same. He would contend and adopt the reply filed in OA No.12/2023. It is submitted that the present MA is not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law inasmuch as the main OA itself is not maintainable in the light of the fact that appointment was purely on contractual basis for one year, extendable for another one year. No decision has yet been taken by the authorities whether to continue to operate the post of Superintendent (Hospital Manager). The same being a policy decision, and therefore, against the framing of the concrete policy, no relief can be granted. 15 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
7. During the course of arguments, we find that the present MA is an after-thought and relief sought cannot be granted in the light of the prayers made in the main OA wherein directions are to seek regularization. Furthermore, it is contended that the applicants are no longer in the service of the respondents by efflux of time inasmuch as the contract itself expired on or after 30.06.2022. Hence even otherwise, the Impugned Order dated 19.01.2023 is a subsequent event which can always be challenged by the aggrieved party by way of independent remedy. The cause of action in the main OA cannot be extended to mean and include decision in the Impugned Order dated 19.01.2023. It is further stated that in any event there is already a stay against the Impugned Order dated 19.01.2023 and the applicants are always at liberty to challenge the same independently. It is further contended that since there is already a stay, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in granting stay in the present matter merely on the basis of MA.
8. The perusal of the pleadings in MA as well as OA hinges on the subsequent development in the case. The disposal of the present MA is to be based on the touchstone of the pleadings as well as maintainability of the main OA itself. Since the OAs have been dismissed, therefore the present MAs are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed at this stage. Needless to mention that since a Co-ordinate 16 OA No. 11/2023 and batch Bench has already stayed operation of the impugned Office Order dated 19.01.2020, therefore, no further orders are necessary. However, any impact of final outcome of the said OA may have some bearing on the present case. If so, the applicants are always at liberty to take such steps as may be advised in furtherance thereto. Hence, the present MA is dismissed with liberty as aforesaid.
CP No.798/2023
9. Petitioners are alleging contempt of Order of this Tribunal dated 03.01.2023 passed in OA No.11/2023, which is reproduced below:
"The present OA has been filed by the applicants, who are 8 in number, and they are stated to be presently serving the respondent no. 3 as Superintendent (Hospital Managers). Counsel for the applicants submits that vide cabinet decision no. 2551 of 31.01.2018, a decision was taken by the Govt. of Delhi for creation of 92 posts of Superintendent (Hospital Managers)for Delhi Government Hospitals, which are to be filled on contract basis initially for one year and extendable by one year based on good performance etc. He submits that the applicants were appointed on the said temporary post after participating in the selection process and they have been working as such since then. He further points out that the said contract was extended from time to time and ultimately an order dated 31.05.2022 was passed, which is annexed at pg. 52 of the OA, whereby the approval of the Hon‟ble Lt. Governor of Delhi was received regarding the proposal for extending the contract of the 54 Superintendent (Hospital Managers) for a period of three months w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 30.06.2022 subject to the condition that a proposal by the Chief Secretary be sent for the assigned task, i.e. for creation of post of Superintendent (Hospital Managers). He thus submits that the said action, which was to be taken by the Chief Secretary has not yet been taken or is pending in the concerned office of the respondents somewhere.
Heard.
Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned counsel, who appears for all respondents on advance service, accepts notice. He submits that as on date they don‟t have 17 OA No. 11/2023 and batch any plan to remove or replace the applicants, who are in service. He further submits, on oral instructions, that some proposal for extension of the services of the said Superintendent (Hospital Managers) has also been sent to the competent authority.
Let the respondents file reply within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List for further consideration on 24.03.2023."
10. Petitioners are alleging contempt of the statement made by Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned counsel, who appears for all the respondents, and submits that as on date they don‟t have any plan to remove or replace the applicants, who are in service. He further submits, on oral instructions that some proposal for extension of the services of the said Superintendent (Hospital Manager) has also been sent to the competent authority.
11. Learned counsel for respondents opposing the contempt petition adopts the compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to CP No.48/2023 in OA No.12/2023 for both the OAs.
12. Learned counsel for the applicants, in support of the case draws a reference to a chart to show that some of the applicants in the aforesaid OA were on rolls of the respondents. The said chart has been disputed by the learned counsel for respondents, inter alia, contending that the attendance register produced by the learned counsel for 18 OA No. 11/2023 and batch applicants qua some of the applicants that they were shown to be attending the office after passing of the Order dated 19.01.2023 is a disputed question of fact. It has been further highlighted that the attendance register which has been produced has been signed by a non-competent authority against which departmental action has already been taken.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
14. Analysis:
14.1 As can be seen from para 8 itself of the CP that according to information respondent No.5 has been instructed to prevent the entry into the hospital of applicants No.4, 5 from 11.02.2023 and applicants No.1,2,6,8 were directed not to enter the hospital on or after 14.02.2023. Thereby the respondent completely flouted the order of this Tribunal. The respondents have not complied with the order of this Tribunal deliberately and intentionally despite the clear-cut statement made on their behalf as such they have committed contempt of this Tribunal. The respondents have no intention to implement any such order from this Tribunal and have committed contempt of the order of this Tribunal. It runs contrary to their own stand and the chart depicted herein below:19 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch S. OA No. Name of Name of Date of Date since No. Applicants Hospital Appoint- prevented to ment report for duty
1. 561/2023 Shikhil Mehra BMH 09.03.2019 21.11.2022 Swati Goel 15.03.2019 21.11.2022
2. 12/2023 Anamika LNH 02.05.2019 18.11.2022 Pandey Pooja Gulia 02.05.2019 18.11.2022 Neha Knogiya 02.05.2019 18.11.2022 Rahul Rana 02.05.2019 18.11.2022 Preeti 01.06.2019 18.11.2022 Sachdeva but reported till December end Khushboo 10.06.2019 18.11.2022 Masih Kainat 10.06.2019 21.11.2022 Ishteyaque Jaan 12.06.2019 19.11.2022 Mohammad but reported till December end Syed Ishan 05.07.2019 18.10.2022 Ahmad Nikita Tanwar 07.06.2021 18.11.2022 Babita Kumari 07.06.2021 18.11.2022
3. 560/2023 Rekha DDUH 27.05.2019 Romil Kurya 27.05.2019
4. 11/2023 Syed Mohd GTBH 13.06.2019 14.02.2023 Shajer Rahul Singh 13.06.2019 11.02.2023 Ishwar 13.06.2019 14.02.2023 Chandra Singh Reena Singh 14.06.2019 16.02.2023 Rohit 28.06.2019 11.02.2023 Choudhary Reena Paul 02.07.2019 14.02.2023 Shalini 26.08.2019 16.02.2023 Umesh Kr. 04.01.2020 14.02.2023 Tripathi
5. 559/2023 Ritu Kapkoti DHAS 07.06.2019 21.11.2022 Sonam Gupta 09.08.2019 21.11.2022 14.2 The same is a disputed question of fact that whether the applicants have been allowed to continue to work in the hospital or not. Since there is a disputed question of 20 OA No. 11/2023 and batch fact, the same cannot be gone into the contempt proceedings.
15. Contempt is alleged on the strength of status quo order dated 03.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal. The contempt petition is a matter between the Contemnor(s) and the Court.
Contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The Court will proceed to exercise the jurisdiction with scrupulous care and only in cases only which are clear and beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In Civil Appeal No. 7317 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1722 of 2007) titled as Parents Association of Students Versus M.A. Khan and another decided on 16.12.2008, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"In a case of this nature, this Court is also not precluded from taking into consideration the subsequent events. Having regard to the subsequent events, and in particular as, the decision as to the Committee‟s power to fix fees is justiciable or not is pending consideration, it would not be fair to allow the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge to continue; assuming that the Division Bench had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and consequently pass the interim order staying the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge. While, therefore, quashing both the orders, we would request the learned Single Judge to consider the merit of contempt matter only after disposal of the Writ Petition No.2117 (M/S) of 2006."
17. The Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a) as follows:
"contempt of court means, civil contempt or criminal contempt", Whereas clause (b) of Section 2 defines Civil Contempt as "willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, 21 OA No. 11/2023 and batch direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court."
18. The jurisdiction of contempt is independent jurisdiction of its original nature. Therefore, this Court is competent to exercise such power to punish a person, who is guilty of contempt and this jurisdiction is enjoyed by Courts, is only for the purpose of upholding the jurisdiction of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Court must not react by the emotion, but must act judicially. Contempt proceedings are intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court and strict adherence of rule of law. Once, the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court shall initiate action, without being influenced by the nature of direction in a pending lis before the Court vide judgment in Priya Gupta and others vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others, JT 2013 (1) SC 27. Contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hyper sensitive or get swung by emotions, but must act judicially as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. S.K.Monobbor Hossain (2012) 3 SCALE 534 ).
22 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch "Contempt" is disorderly conduct of contemnor causing serious damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified into two categories one which has a transient effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither by the passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and administration of Justice (Vide:
Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and others(2011) 6 SCALE 220.).
19. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2004) 7 SCC 2617, held that, while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has reached its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different from what was taken in the earlier decision. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order, which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.
Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non- compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say 23 OA No. 11/2023 and batch what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.
20. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with violation of order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Court, held that, a party proceeded against Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C for disobedience of an order of injunction cannot be held to have willfully disobeyed the order provided two conditions are satisfied viz., (1) that the order was ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation (2) that the party being proceeded against in fact did not intend to disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with his interpretation of the order. The question whether a party has understood an order in a particular manner and has conducted himself in accordance with such a construction is primarily one of-fact, and where the materials before the Court do not support such a state of affairs, the Court cannot attribute an innocent intention based on presumptions, for the only reason, that 24 OA No. 11/2023 and batch ingenuity of Counsel can discover equivocation in the order which is the subject of enforcement. Though undoubtedly proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C have a punitive aspect - as is evident from the contemnor being liable to be ordered to be detained in civil prison, they are in substance designed to affect the enforcement of or to execute the order. This is clearly brought out by their identity with the procedure prescribed by Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C for execution of a decree for permanent injunction. No doubt the State Government not being a natural person could not be ordered to be detained in civil prison, On the analogy of Corporations; for which special provision is made in Order XXXIX Rule V C.P.C, but beyond that, both when a decree for a permanent injunction is executed and when an order of temporary injunction is enforced the liability of the State Government to be proceeded against appears to us clear.
21. Viewed from another angle, in Regional Manager, SBI vs. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, 2006 (1) SCC 530, it has been observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court:
"14. Section 25G requires the employer to "ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in a particular category of workman unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman". This "last come first go" rule predicates (1) that the workman retrenched belongs to a particular category (2) that there was no agreement to the contrary and (3) that the employer had not recorded any reasons for not following the principle. These are all questions of fact in respect of which evidence would have to be led, the onus to prove the first requirement being on the workman and the second and third requirements on the 25 OA No. 11/2023 and batch employer. Necessarily a fair opportunity of leading such evidence must be available to both parties. This would in turn entail laying of a foundation for the case in the pleadings. If the plea is not put forward such an opportunity is denied, quite apart from the principle that no amount of evidence can be looked into unless such a plea is raised. [See Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran; Bondar Singh and Ors. v. Nihal Singh and Ors."
22. Applying the principles enunciated above to facts of the present case, records would reveal that the temporary contractual employment came to end on 30.06.2022. No steps have been taken, thereafter, by the respondents to carry forward the said proposal to its logical conclusion. It is seen that services of the petitioner have been dispensed with effect from 30.06.2022. No further cause of action has accrued as on date of filing the present contempt petition or till date. Furthermore, action of the respondents qua the circular dated 19.01.2023 have been stayed by this Tribunal in OA No.297/2023.
23. The status quo order cannot be stretched to mean and include the extension of rights which were not in existence on the date of filing the petition. The petitioner(s) continued to be on rolls of the respondents as on date of status quo order are disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated and gone in Contempt jurisdiction unless and until some flagrant violation is shown and/or the action of the respondents are discriminatory in nature. The said wrong/violation must be 26 OA No. 11/2023 and batch apparently supported by the some documentary evidence. The remedy to the applicants lie elsewhere either by way of civil wrong and/or damages but definitely not in a contempt proceedings for embarking upon a roving investigation or enquiry.
24. Hence, the present contempt petitions are liable to be rejected as devoid of merits.
OA No.11/2023
25. In the present OA, the applicants are seeking following reliefs:
"a. Direct the respondent to take all necessary steps for completion of all codal formalities to make posts permanent, in respect of the post sanctioned vide cabinet decision dated 05.02.2018 and accordingly regularize the applicants on said posts.
b. Direct the respondents to complete all formalities in respect of post created by cabinet decision 05.02.2018 in a time bound program and includes the applicants as part of constitution of the cadre/service.
c. Hold and declared that the applicants have been recruited in compliance of article 14 of the Constitution of India after due advertisement, on being successful by the high-power selection committee and are therefore duly recruited against the sanction post and cannot be termed as contractual.
d. That the applicants have been continuously discharging their duties assigned to them to satisfaction of the superior and cannot be discontinued by replacing person from outsource or any other mode.
e. Hold and declare that the impelled action is highly illegal unjustified and arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and same is liable to be set aside and the applicants are entitled for issuance of appropriate direction for continuance and regularization.27 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch g. Such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the facts of the circumstance of the present case.
h. Allow the cost."
26. Brief Facts:
26.1 Learned counsel for the applicants stated that the applicants were appointed against sanctioned posts pursuant to an advertisement which appeared in various newspaper/website of Government of NCT of Delhi.
26.2 The appointments were made after due selection by the recommendation of the High Powered Selection Committee of the Hospital constituted pursuant to directions of second Respondent, i.e. Principal Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
26.3 It is submitted that 92 posts of Superintendent (Hospital Managers) in different Hospitals of respondent No.2 were created vide Cabinet Decision dated 05.02.2018. The posts were created in the larger public interest on the basis of the recommendation of Special Committee constituted for the purpose.
26.4 The said Committee found that Doctors engaged in non-clinical activities would be freed of such work and would be able to look after the patients which would improve the nature of medical services in the hospital. The Committee 28 OA No. 11/2023 and batch further observed that it would also reduce the waiting time of the patients to be attended by the doctors.
26.5 It is further submitted that the nature of duties, responsibilities and the job performance for which 92 posts were created is of permanent nature and the decision to sanction these posts was to improve efficiency and quality of work performance by the doctors. The initial appointment of the applicants was for a period of one year which was extendable by another year on satisfactory performance.
Their appointments as per the advertisement were said to be on contractual basis but legally speaking the applicants have been made to work against the regular sanctioned post. As such, the appointments are essentially against the sanctioned post as per the Cabinet decision dated 05.02.2018, as approved by respondent No.1, i.e. Lt. Governor of Delhi vide order dated 31.07.2018, which cannot be said to be contractual by any stretch of imagination. 26.6 Moreover, it has been the practice to continue the applicants and formal orders of further extension used to come later. It is further submitted that the extension of Superintendents (Hospital Manager) always came late. The applicants continued to work but no salary was paid w.e.f. from 01.07.2022, the posts have neither been abolished nor can be abolished, in view of nature of duties attached to 29 OA No. 11/2023 and batch them. The respondents, in an arbitrary and malafide manner, are going to employ persons by outsourcing through GEM in place of the applicants, which is in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi as also this Tribunal. Such an action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and also violative of principles of natural justice.
26.7 Learned counsel for the applicants lastly submitted that according to the order dated 14.03.2018 the respondents were required to send a proposal to AR Department for further study on engagement of Hospital Managers in hospital but it appears that no steps have been taken by the respondents in compliance of the order dated 14.03.2018. As against the creation of temporary posts at the initial stage, decision was taken to create a regular cadre. They were also required to take all necessary steps to take a final decision in the matter and frame rules but have failed to take any decision in this regard. Hence the OA.
27. Per contra, the respondents have filed their reply and vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicants stating that pursuant to the recommendations of the constituted Committee, Superintendents (HM) were appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year, extendable for another term of one year subject to their satisfactory work, 30 OA No. 11/2023 and batch conduct and record. It was made clear that their engagement shall be terminated automatically on expiry of the said period or till a regular incumbent joins the post, whichever is earlier. The appointment was also subject to their being declared medically fit by the Medical Board of the hospital. The other conditions of service were to be governed by relevant rules and orders issued from time to time. It was further stipulated in the appointment order that in case of any false declaration, the incumbent will be removed from service or action will be taken as deemed fit under the relevant rules. It is further submitted that on 19.03.2020 a proposal for extension of contract of 10 Superintendents (HM) working in LNH was forwarded to Health and Family Welfare Department of Delhi Government to accord concurrence for proposal for a period of one year, i.e., 02.05.2020 to 01.05.2021 after taking work and conduct report with performance of the concerned Incharge/MOI/CS of the Superintendents (HM) and after lockdown fresh proposal was put up for extension of contract of 10 Superintendents (HM) for a period of 6 months from 02.05.2020 to 01.11.2020, as directed by MD/Lok Nayak Hospital (LNH) and Finance Department forwarded the file to DGHS for submitting a consolidated proposal for continuation of posts in all Hospitals. Further, vide order dated 23.10.2020 issued by Incharge Delhi Arogya Kosh, DGHS, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide which the contract figured in 31 OA No. 11/2023 and batch respect of 54 Superintendents (HM) for a period of one year had been extended. Subsequently, Finance Department has conveyed its approval for extension of the contract period for one year vide UO No.135/DSI dated 20.10.2020.
28. He further submitted that in continuation of the earlier order dated 21.09.2021 issued by Incharge, Delhi Arogya Kosh, DGHS, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in view of requirement of Superintendents (HM) for impending third wave of Covid pandemic, Hon‟ble Lt. Governor, Delhi accorded approval to extend the contractual appointment of 54 Superintendents (HM) till 31.03.2022 and to fill the remaining 38 vacant posts (92-54) on contract basis by HOD of Delhi Govt. Hospitals concerned, if required, subject to observing all codal formalities/requisite procedures. Finance Department has also conveyed concurrence regarding the same, vide UO No.429/DSI dated 05.08.2021. Meanwhile, on 01.05.2021 Delhi Govt. decided to open 500 bedded ICU facility at Ramleela Maidan under LNH and some vacancies were advertised by which two HMs, namely, Ms. Nikita and Ms. Babita were engaged for 89 days and posted in Ramleela Maidan under LNH. Therefore, in pursuance of order dated 21.09.2021, Hon‟ble Lt. Governor of Delhi directed to fill vacant post of Superintendents (HM) on contract basis. Thereafter, on recommendation and approval of Medical 32 OA No. 11/2023 and batch Director, LNH, Ms. Nikita and Ms. Babita were again engaged and posted to the post of to fill vacant post of Superintendents (HM) on contract basis w.e.f. 07.06.2021 to 31.03.2022 vide letter dated 07.06.2021.
29. Vide order dated 31.05.2022 issued by Incharge, Delhi Arogya Kosh, GNCTD the following has been mentioned "I am directed to convey the approval of Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi regarding the proposal for extending of contractual appointment of present 54 Hospital Managers for a period of 03 months w.e.f. 01.04.2022 till 30.06.2022 subject to the condition proposed by Chief Secretary, that the assigned task i.e. creation of post of Superintendents (Hospital Managers) should be completed within the extended timeline and Secretary (Health) should monitor the same. Further, Finance Department concurred the aforementioned proposal vide U.O No. 76/ds2 dated 27.05.2022 and on 24.06.2022 Secretary Health approved the extension of contract of 02 Superintendent (Hospital Manager) in LNH, namely, Ms. Nikita & Ms. Babita w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 30.06.2022 on recommendation of DGHS and approved the extension of said Hospital Managers in LNH within the sanctioned post of Hospital Manager in LNH as well as within the total number of 54 Managers for which Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi had accorded approval for extension.
33 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
30. These Superintendents (Hospital Managers) were given extension from time to time and the last extension was approved upto 30.06.2022 vide order no. F.821/Pt.File- II1/CD#000531 184/2474 dated 31.05.2022 issued by Incharge, Delhi Arogya Kosh, DGHS GNCT of Delhi and no further extension has been granted by Competent Authority.
31. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, this O.A. may be dismissed as the applicants have asked for regularization of their services without disclosing the fact that their service contract has not been extended beyond 30.06.2022.
32. We have heard marathon arguments of Mr. K.C.Mittal, learned senior counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Yadav and Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Amit Anand with Mr. Sunil Bansal and Mr. Girish C.Jha, learned counsel for respondents and perused the pleadings on record. Learned senior counsel Shri K.C. Mittal has provided his written arguments along with case-laws.
33. With the consent of the learned counsel for parties the Misc. Applications, Contempt Petitions as well as OA were taking up for detailed hearing at admission stage itself. Furthermore, the learned counsels agreed that OA No.11/2013 be taken up as lead case that has been recorded 34 OA No. 11/2023 and batch in Order dated 03.03.2023 passed in its MA No.784/2023, which is reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
"(Item No.17) CP No.48/2023 in OA No.12/2023, (Item No.19) OA No.559/2023, (Item No.20) OA No.560/2023, (Item No.21) OA No.561/2023, (Item No.23) MA No.784/2023 in OA No.11/2023 These are connected matters.
Reply to the main OA has been filed in CP No.48/23 in OA No.12/23 on behalf of respondent-Lok Nayak Hospital. Let learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 take appropriate instructions with regard to adopting the similar reply on behalf of other official respondents.
Let the pleadings be completed before the next date of listing in all the OAs.
At the request of learned counsel for applicants, Item No.23 i.e. OA No.11/2023(Syed Mohd. Shajer And Others v. GNCTD and Others) shall be taken as the lead case. The learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the same.
Liberty is granted to the counsel for the parties to file written submissions, not exceeding five pages, along with case laws, if any, before the next date of listing.
List on 09.03.2023 within the first ten matters."
34. Analysis:
34.1 In the above backdrop, the points of controversy in the present OA(s) posed before us are to adjudicate inter alia to the effect that:
(i) Can the applicants seek relief sought on the strength of continued employment on a temporary contractual employment merely because they continued to work beyond a period of two years as 35 OA No. 11/2023 and batch contemplated in the Cabinet decision dated 31.7.2018.
(ii) Do the applicants have a right to invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectations and /or have acquired an indefeasible right to continue in contractual employment till the creation of posts or any other decision on the issue is taken by the authorities?
34.2 We would like to draw a reference to the fact that the object behind the directions in para 53 of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, seems to be two-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of Courts/Tribunals, before the date of decision in Uma Devi (supra) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily- wages/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the Constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment. Thus, persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.04.2006, the date of decision in Uma Devi (supra), 36 OA No. 11/2023 and batch without the protection of any interim order of any Court/Tribunal, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such an exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Uma Devi (supra) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited view, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Uma Devi (supra) as a one-time measure.‟ 34.3 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has also held that contractual employees cannot be regularized because this will amount to perpetrating fraud on those candidates who did not apply thinking that the posts are not permanent posts. The judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under:-
(i) Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Others (2008) 10 SCC 1
(ii) National Fertilizers Ltd. and Others Vs. Somvir Singh (2006) 5 SCC 493.
(iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. L.V. Subramanyeswara and Another (2007) 5 SCC 326.
(iv) State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 34.4 In the case of Yogesh Mahajan Vs. Professor R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 37 OA No. 11/2023 and batch (2018) 3 SCC 218, Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed in para 6, 7 and 8 as under:
"6. It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30th June, 2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the concerned authorities should consider extending his contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractual basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by the concerned authorities and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner.
7. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the decision of this Court in Uma Devi. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made in accordance with any regular procedure or by following the necessary rules. That being so, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. The decision in Uma Devi does not advance the case of the petitioner.
8. Insofar as the final submission of the petitioner to the effect that some persons were appointed as Technical Assistant (ENT) in May 2016 is concerned, we are of the view that the events of 2016 cannot relate back to the events of 2010 when a decision was taken by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences not to extend the contract of the petitioner. The situation appears to have changed over the last six years and the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the changed situation. There is no material on record to indicate what caused the change in circumstances, and merely because there was a change in circumstances, does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to any benefit. On the other hand, it might have been more appropriate for the petitioner to have participated in the walk in interview so that he could also be considered for appointment as Technical Assistant (ENT), but he chose not to do so."
34.5 In the case of Oshiar Prasad and others vs. Employers in Relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad, 38 OA No. 11/2023 and batch Jharkhand reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 25 as under:
"25. It is a settled principle of law that absorption and regularization in the service can be claimed or/and granted only when the contract of employment subsists and is in force inter se employee and employer. Once it comes to an end either by efflux of time or as per the terms of the Contract of employment or by its termination by the employer, then in such event, the relationship of employee and employer comes to an end and no longer subsists except for the limited purpose to examine the legality and correctness of its termination."
34.6 In case titled The State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 (2020) 15 SCC 466 dated 17.10.2019 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an ad-hoc appointment is only a contingent appointment. Permanent vacancies should be filled only by following the prescribed recruitment process. Doctrine of legitimate expectation for illegal appointees and non regular appointees does not come into play as temporary, contractual or casual engagement is not done by following the prescribed rules or procedures. Persons so engaged are fully aware that their engagement is purely temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The beneficiary of legitimate expectation needs to prove that depriving him/her of any benefit can be done only after affording him/her an opportunity of being heard. 39 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch
35. Conclusion:
35.1 Before we arrive at a final decision, we would like to summarize the critical points in the present case. The applicants are fully aware of the fact that they had been engaged purely on contractual basis and had no right whatsoever for indefinite continuation on the post or for regularization thereof. Their engagement was continued with each further extension received from time to time.
35.2 It is an obvious fact that sanctioned posts can be filled up on a regular basis only by way of following the prescribed procedure for recruitment otherwise the Constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14, 16, 309, 315, 320 etc. would be violated. The Government is well within its right to temporarily engage contractual workers till such time regularly appointed candidates become available.
Such contractual workers know it for sure that they have not been regularly appointed and hence do not have a claim for equal treatment with regularly selected employees or for regularisation. Such employees cannot claim legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they very well know that they are being engaged purely on a contractual basis which would last only till the expiry of the contract. 40 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch 35.3 As brought out above, contractual engagement of the applicants came to an end on 30.06.2022 when their services were dispensed with. It is also not the case of the applicants that they are being replaced by another set of contractual employees which would be in violation of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex court in State of Haryana &Ors. vs. Piara Singh [1992 (4) SCC 118]. The pleadings do not show any such action on the part of the respondents. Moreover, it is not being prayed by the applicants that they are being replaced by another set of contractual employees. The instant OAs have been filed after a gap of six months from the date of expiry of their contract period. 35.4 The applicants have failed to provide any documentary evidence that they had been engaged on contractual basis with an assurance that they would be regularized in service in due course. Merely on the strength of the fact that the applicants have continued to work for 3½ years, they cannot stake a claim for permanent absorption. Moreover, they have ceased to be in employment on contractual basis on the date of termination of their contract i.e. 30.06.2022. Thereafter, with the efflux of time and the fact that they are currently not in employment of the respondents, they cannot stake a claim for regularization. 41 OA No. 11/2023 and
batch 35.5 In the conspectus of the issues enumerated above, we find that it is an undeniable fact that the applicants, who had been engaged on contractual basis, have ceased to be contractual employees from the date of termination of the contract i.e. 30.06.2022. Coupled with the fact that there is no proposal on hand to replace the applicants by another set of contractual employees, we find that the OA lacks merit. The respondents are at liberty to fill up the posts on a regular basis strictly as per the prescribed recruitment rules and as per their administrative requirement. However, in case the respondents decide to again fill up these posts on contractual basis, the applicants would be given preference over others, if they apply for such contractual engagement in future.
36. Resultantly, all the present OAs and CPs are disposed of with the above observations. All pending MAs are also disposed of.
37. All pending MAs are also disposed off.
38. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) Member (J) Member (A) /sd/