Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ishwar Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 7 November, 2025
1
Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2329/2016
Reserved on:- 30.10.2025
Pronounced on:- ____________
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Sh. Ishwar Singh (aged about 49 years)
Son of Shri Attar Singh, R/o H. No. A-43, Dena
Apartments, Plot No. 36, Sector-13,Rohini, Delhi-
110085. Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil),
in the D.S.I.I.D.C. Ltd.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. R A Sharma)
Versus
1. The Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
D.S.I.I.D.C. Ltd.,
N-36, Bombay Life Building,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
2. Sh. Qazi Furquan Ahmed
S/o (Late) S.H. Siddique
Presently working as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
3. Sh. Vipin Sharma
S/o Sh. R.D. Sharma
R/o C-10/36, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053.
Presently working as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
4. Sh. Vikas Sharma
S/o Sh. P.N. Sharma
R/o 27/78, Gali No. 8,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
5. Sh. Arun Kumar
S/o Sh. Vasu Dev
2
Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016
Court No. IV
R/o H.No. 96, Roshanpur Daurli,
Gurukul Daurli, Meerut-250001 (U.P.).
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
6. Sh. Jai Dev Sharma
S/o S.D. Sharma
R/o C-131/114, Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
7. Sh. Naresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o Flat No. 62, Type-III,
Ambedkar Hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
8. Sh. Subhash Sharma
S/o Sh. Suresh Chandra
R/o House No. 1208, Panna Paposiya,
Narela, Delhi.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
9. Sh. Ravindra Kumar
S/o Sh. Deshpal
R/o H. No. 25, Block-A,
Village Rajpur, Khurd Colony,
Mehrauli, P.O. Mehrauli, Near Chattarpur Mandir, Delhi.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
10. Sh. S.K. Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Ram Roop Chaudhary
R/o 8817, Gali No. 1,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
11. Sh. Ajay Aggarwal
S/o Sh. R.P. Aggarwal
R/o Pocket H-3, Plot No. 5-6,
Grand FLR, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
12. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Nain
S/o Sh. Attar Singh
R/o Village & P.O. Jat Khor, Delhi-110039.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
13. Sh. Gopi Ram
S/o Sh. Parshuram
R/o H.No. 14, Mukundpur,
3
Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016
Court No. IV
Village & P.O. Samaypur Badli, Delhi-110088.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
14. Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma
S/o Sh. B.P. Sharma
R/o C-79-A, Jitar Nagar,
New Pirwana Road, Delhi-110051.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
15. Sh. Surender Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o H. No. 316, Village & P.O. Kutub Garh, Delhi-
110039.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
16. Sh. Dharam Dutt Sharma
S/o Sh. Vidya Nand Sharma
R/o M-71D-11, Jhule Lal Apartments,
Pitam Pura, Delhi-110034.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
17. Sh. Atul Sharma
S/o Sh. R.N. Sharma
R/o A-173, Meera Bagh, New Delhi.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
18. Sh. Sunil Dabas
S/o Jai Singh
R/o Flat No. 55, Pocket-1,
Sector-23, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
19. Sh. Dhirendra Kumar
S/o Sh. Sahab Singh
R/o 97, Vaishali, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110034.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
20. Sh. Shyam Lal
S/o Sh. Jeesukh Prasad
R/o H.No. 6A, Block, DDA (Slum) Flat,
Avantika Enclave, Sector-2, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Presently posted as Junior Engineer (Civil)
in DSIIDC Ltd.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Ruchika Rathi for Official
respondents; Mr. S K Gupta for
Private Respondents)
4
Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
"8. (a) Call for the records of the case and quash and set aside the order dated 19.05.2016 (Annexure A-1) issued by the DSIIDC Ltd
(b) Direct the respondent Corporation (the DSIIDC Ltd.) to grant seniority to the applicant in the cadre of J.E. (Civil) w.e.f. 21.08.1998 and make necessary correction(s) in the civil list of J.Es, (Civil) (Annexure A-15) by adding applicant's name at the correct place No.1 in the above civil list and publish the amended civil list of J.Es(civil) with applicant~ name mentioned therein according to his seniority at S.No.1 w.e.f.
21.08.1998 in the above cadre.
(c) Direct the respondent Corporation (the DSIIDC ltd.) to consider & count the service of the applicant in the cadre of J.E(Civil) w.e.f. 21.08.1998 towards qualifying service for promotion to the next promotional post of Assistant Executive engineer (civil) and grant all consequential benefits of service flowing therefrom including arrears of pay and allowances.
(d) Pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper m the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(e) Allow this O.A. alongwith cost in favour of the applicant."
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that by way of the present Original Application, the applicant, who was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on an ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 21.08.1998, worked continuously until his service was regularized w.e.f. 23.10.2015. He is 5 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016 Court No. IV challenging the DSIIDC's refusal to grant him seniority from 21.08.1998, claiming that his entire ad-hoc service should count toward seniority, as he was appointed against existing vacancies and not in a temporary or stop-gap capacity. The applicant is also seeking a direction to the respondent Corporation (DSIIDC Ltd.) to consider and count his service from 21.08.1998 toward qualifying service for promotion to the next promotional post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) and to grant all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances. 2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to Annexure-A/2, being the appointment letter dated 17.08.1998, which sets out the terms and conditions of the applicant's engagement as Junior Engineer (Civil) on ad-hoc basis and the same reads as under:
"DELHI SIGIE IUDUSIBIGL DEVELOPMENI COBEORGIION LIMITED BOMBAY LIEE BUILDING LU BLOCK CONNAUGUI CIRCUS NEW DELHI, LECESQGUEL DIVISION No. DSIDC/ Dated: 17-8-1998 The undersigned hereby offer Sh. Ishwar Singh a post of JE CIVIL on an initial Poy of Rs 5000/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 on Adhoc basis.
The appointee shall, besides getting the minimum of the above mentioned pay scale, be entitled to 6 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016 Court No. IV received other allowances as admissible from time to time to employees of the corporation.
1. The appointment will be subject to the following conditions:
i) The appointee shall be liable to be transferred to any office of the DSIDC in Delhi or outside.
ii) Production of Medical Certificate from a Govt.
Hospital in the proforma enclosed.
iii) A declaration to the effect that appointee has not more than one living wife/husband as per proforma enclosed.
iv) Declaration on as per proforma regarding taking of date/affirmation to the constitution.
v) Production of all educational certificate, in
original with attested copies from
Matriculation /Higher Secondary onwards, and also SC/ST/OBC Certificates by the concern.
vi) Proof of age.
vii) Character certificate from Gazetted
Officers/Stipendiary Magistrates as per
proforma enclosed.
viii) If serving in any Govt. Department/ Local Body /Corporation, no objection certificate from the same.
ix) Two copies of the passport size photograph duly attested by the Gazetted Officer.
x) He / She appointment shall be purely temporary and his/her services are liable to be terminated any time without assigning any reason thereof.
If any information, declaration or certificate furnished by the person concerned is found to be false or is deficient in material truth, he shall be 7 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016 Court No. IV liable to be removed from services of DSIDC Ltd, at once besides being prosecuted under the Law. It will be obligatory on the part of the appointee to apply for permission to appear in any examination after appointment failing which he will be liable to disciplinary action.
If the above terms and conditions is acceptable to Sh. Ishwar Singh, He / She should send his / her acceptance within 7 days from the receipt of this letter.
After acceptance of the offer as referred to above. he/she shall be required to join and also to complete the requisite documents in respect of appointment within _____ days from the date of acceptance failing which it will be presumed that he/she is not interested in the assignment and the offer shall be treated as withdrawn without any further reference. The other terms and conditions of the service of appointee shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of DSIDC Ltd. (Staff Service Rules, 1978 as amended from time to time)."
2.2. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to an Office Order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the respondents in light of the decision passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1365/2012, which reads as under:-
"Sh. lshwar Singh, Junior Engineer (Civil) ad-hoc, filed a petition i.e. OA No. 1365/2012 before the Principal Bench of Hon'ble CAT. The Hon'ble CAT. vide order dated 20.11.2014, directed the Corporation to consider the prayer of applicant in terms '·bf the Orders passed by the Tribunal in T A 26112009 and 262/2009 and the Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 14160/2009 and the Review Petition No. 127/2014 in WP(C) 14160/2009.
In pursuance of the Order dated 20.11.2014 of Ho'ble CAT, an induction test was conducted on 24.09.2015 to consider the case of Sb. lshwar Singh, JE(C) (ad-hoc· since 21.08.1998) for regularization of his services. On the recommendations ~f the Interview Board, Competent Authority is pleased to regularize the services of Shri .Jshwar Singh as Junior Engineer(Civll) in PB-11 Rs.9300-34800+4200(GP) w.e.f. 23.10.2015."8 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016
Court No. IV 2.3. The following reliefs were sought by the applicant in O.A. No. 1365/2012, which was decided by this Tribunal on 20.11.2014:-
"(i) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.04.2011 and direct the Respondents to treat the service render by the applicant as J.E. (Civil) w.e.f. 21.08.1998 as regular service for all purposes.
ii) to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant as J.E. (Civil) from the date of his appointment with all consequential benefits.
iii) To direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant for promotion to the post of AEE from the date his juniors with all consequential benefits.
iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
v) To allow the O.A. with cost.""
2.4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon following case laws:-
(i) Chander Bhan Sharma vs. Delhi Administration - Civil Writ Appeal No. 605/1970, decided 10 March 1977, Delhi High Court.
(ii) Bheru Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -
M.P. No. 1102/1985 (as cited), decided 25 March 1986, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench).
(iii) Kuldeep Chand Sharma & Anr. vs. Delhi Administration & Anr. - C.W. No. 778/1977, decided 23 May 1978, Delhi High Court.
(iv) K P Singh vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi - W.P.(C) No. 5864/2015, decided 13 January 2017, Delhi High Court.
(v) Sabyasachi Mukharji (AIR 1990 SC 1607) - Civil Appeal No. 194-202 of 1986, reported AIR 1990 SC 1607, Supreme Court of India.
(Vi) Rudra Kumar Sain vs. Union of India - AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2808 9 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016 Court No. IV
3. It is not in dispute that the private respondents were regularized in the year 2014, by virtue of an Office Order dated 07.05.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant was appointed through a regular process against a sanctioned regular post, which is undisputed. The action of the respondents in regularizing the applicant's service from 2015 is argued to be contrary to the principles of justice, and it is contended that applicant's regularization should be antedated to the initial date of appointment, i.e., 1998. In support of this claim, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India (CA No. ___ of 24 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5580/2024), decided on 20.12.2024.
5. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant's appointment was on an ad-hoc basis and, therefore, his service cannot be treated as regular from the date of appointment in 1998. Learned counsel argued that the regularization of the applicant's service was properly effected from 23.10.2015, and the denial of 10 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016 Court No. IV seniority from 21.08.1998 is in accordance with the applicable rules. Learned counsel further argued that the decision to regularize applicant's service was made after following due procedure and there is no legal basis for antedating his regularization to 1998. Learned counsel relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Rashmi Mani Mishra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Civil Appeals No. 10788/2016, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 28.07.2021.
(ii) State of Haryana and Others Vs. Vijay Singh and Others, Civil Appeal No. 5947/2012, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 22.08.2012.
(iii) W Morris Romel Roy and Ors. Vs. Airports Authority of India, W.P. (C) No. 3398/2013, decided by the Delhi High Court on 28.11.2013.
5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that by the concept of res judicata, the relief sought by the applicant is barred. Learned counsel referred to clause 4 of the initial offer of appointment dated 27.08.1998 (Annexure-A/3), which, according to her, is relevant for the present purpose and reads as under:-
"4. Save as above/his appointment is purely temporary and his services are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof."
6. Mr. S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the private respondents, submitted that as per the applicant's own showing, the private respondents are already senior to 11 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016 Court No. IV the applicant, and there has been no challenge to their seniority till date.
7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
8. ANALYSIS :
8.1 In Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27603/2019), titled Smt. Imlikokla Longchar & Others vs. The State of Nagaland & Others, decided on 11.10.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"12.....The general principle of service jurisprudence is that the time spent in the immediate superior grade on stopgap or adhoc basis ought not to be computed for determining the length of service of an incumbent in that cadre. This is of course, subject to any contrary provision made in the applicable Rules itself. But no such contrary provision has been shown to us at the time of hearing of this appeal on behalf of the appellants or the State. Thus, computation of the appellants' period of service in the feeder grade can take place only from the date of their regular appointment in that cadre. This view has been taken by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra & Others [(1990) 2 SCC 715], Swapan Kumar Pal and Others vs. Samitabhar Chakraborty and Others [(2001) 5 SCC 581], State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi [(2009) 12 SCC 49], Amarjeet Singh and Others vs. Devi Ratan and Others [(2010) 1 SCC 417], and Malook Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 876].
13. At the time the appellants were regularised with retrospective effect, the 2003 Rules had come into existence. Thus, the requirement of the Schedule to the said Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India could not be overridden by a clause contained in the Memorandum promoting K. On the other hand, the 2003 Rules ought to supersede any contrary provision that may be contained in an earlier legal instrument. The appellants cannot claim any vested legal right on the basis of certain conditions contained in K's promotional recommendation.12 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016
Court No. IV
14. The appellants had entered the service as lecturer on contractual basis in the year 199293 around the same time K had joined as senior lecturer, also on contract basis. For the purpose of determining the length of service in the feeder posts as contained in Schedule II of the 2003 Rules, the time spent on contractual basis cannot be factored in. If that yardstick is applied, then K's case for seniority in the grade of senior lecturer will have to be computed from the year 1993 only. Even if we proceed on the basis that the retrospective effect given to regularisation of the appellants in the post of lecturer is valid, then also, 15th January 2001 becomes the starting point for calculating five years of service length in the feeder cadre. They were given promotion on officiating basis as senior lecturers with effect from 14th November 2003 (for A1 and A2) and 20th January 2001 (for A3 and A4). Thus, the requisite five year period could not have been completed by any of them if the retroactivity of their regularisation order in the post of senior lecturer is to be accepted. The period spent in a promotional post on officiating basis cannot be permitted to be factored in for calculating length of service in a particular post. Unless the Rules otherwise provide, officiation in a particular post cannot encadre the incumbent in that post. We have already referred to different authorities laying down this proposition of law earlier in this judgment. Birth in the cadre takes place only upon regularisation in a grade and there is no provision in the 2003 Rules which prescribes encadering a person in the post of senior lecturer during the period such person officiates in the said post. So far as length of service in feeder post is concerned, that also has to exclude the contractual period during which the appellants served as lecturers, once we apply this principle.
15. The appellants had no doubt completed three years of service in the feeder grade on operationalisation of 2003 Rules on 30th April 2007. But so far, the said Rules seek to give them regularisation in the cadre of senior lecturer with effect from 2003 and 2001 respectively, their service in the feeder grade do not meet the required stipulation of five year period. Judgment of a Coordinate Bench in the case of Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2019) 6 SCC 647], construed the term 'continuous service' in relation to the specific rules this Court was dealing with in that case. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the ratio of this judgment would not be applicable because the appellants here did not fulfil the eligibility requirement for being promoted to the post of senior lecturer. If retroactivity of order is given effect to for calculating the officiating period, as we have already observed, time spent as an officiating senior lecturer could not be deemed to be the dates of their birth in the cadre of senior lecturer. In Girish Kumar (supra), it has also been held that such interpretation shall not be applicable when considering eligibility criteria. In the present appeal, one of the eligibility criteria is five years of continuous service in the feeder post. We cannot ignore this factor and proceed on the basis as if the term continuous service is being construed only for determining interse seniority in the promotional post. We are testing here if the appellants' entry in the promotional 13 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016 Court No. IV cadre was as per the eligibility criteria or not. In our opinion, it was not. To hold otherwise would require entire stretch of K's service in the post of senior lecturer since 1993 to be taken into account for determining the inter se seniority among the appellants and K.
16. For these reasons, we do not wish to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The authorities to take steps on the basis of seniority positions of the appellants and the respondent no. 4 in terms of this judgment. The appeal is dismissed."
8.2 The applicant was initially appointed as Technical Supervisor and later as Work Assistants on a muster roll basis between 1995 and 1998.
8.3. As per the applicant's own pleadings in the O.A., he was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 21.08.1998 and continued to work uninterruptedly since then. He was granted a personal promotion vide order dated 09.02.2010 to the higher pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4800 w.e.f. 21.08.2008. The applicant initially approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 293/2010, which was disposed of on 06.09.2010 with a direction to DSIIDC to consider his claim for regularization at par with others. However, the DSIIDC, vide orders dated 14.03.2011 and 19.04.2011, refused to regularize his ad-hoc service, compelling him to file another O.A. No. 1365/2012. Meanwhile, a group of contractual Junior Engineers had filed W.P. (C) Nos. 23570-23580/2005, later transferred to this Tribunal as 14 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016 Court No. IV T.A. Nos. 261-262/2009, which were decided on 08.07.2009 directing DSIIDC to hold regular selections through DSSSB while maintaining status quo. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 09.01.2013 in W.P. (C) No. 14160/2009 and clarified further in Review Petition No. 127/2014 decided on 14.03.2014. In compliance with the Tribunal's later order dated 20.11.2014 in O.A. No. 1365/2012, DSIIDC conducted an interview on 24.09.2015, and thereafter regularized the applicant's services as J.E. (Civil) w.e.f. 23.10.2015 vide order dated 29.10.2015. 8.4 The learned counsel for the applicant attempts to distinguish the present case from O.A. No. 2028/2017, which was dismissed by this Tribunal, by highlighting that the applicants in that case were contractual, whereas the applicant in the present case was initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis against a sanctioned post with a regular pay scale. However, we find that this distinction is artificial. The terms of the applicant's appointment clearly indicated that the post was temporary. The applicant's services were regularized under the Office Order dated 29.10.2015, pursuant to orders from the Hon'ble High Court and following a regular selection process, which included an interview. 15 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016 Court No. IV At that point, the applicant accepted the regularization offer and the terms associated with it, thereby demonstrating acquiescence to the regularization process as prescribed.
8.5. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate, therefore, estops the applicant from claiming seniority from the date of the initial ad-hoc appointment. To grant such a claim would be akin to indirectly granting regularization from the date of the applicant's initial appointment, which would result in an anomalous situation. Moreover, the applicant has not challenged the promotion or regularization order of the private respondent, effective from 2014, in the present O.A. to seek inter-se seniority. Regularization itself is not a mode of appointment but a process to bring employees in line with the established rules, and there was no provision at any stage stating that past services would be counted for the purpose of regularization. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (2006) 8 SCC 381 [para 46] held as under:
"...The fact that in certain cases the court had directed regularization of the employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation."16 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 2329/2016
Court No. IV
9. CONLCUSION :
9.1. In view of the detailed discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the action of the respondents in rejecting the applicant's claim. Consequently, the Original Application is hereby dismissed.
9.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/