Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Vishwa Deepak Bamola vs Aiims on 17 June, 2025
1
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2222/2025
This the 17th day of June, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1) Dr. Vishwa Deepak Bamola APPLICANT No 1
S / O: Late Shri J P Bamola
Address: H.No.82, Masjid
Moth, South Extension-2,
New Delhi - 110049
Mobile No.: 9650535689
2) Dr. Yogesh Kumar APPLICANT No 2
S / O Shri Tarsem Lal
Address- A8, Lovely Apartment,
Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Extn,
Delhi-91
Mobile No. 9953091867
3) Dr. Shachi Vashist APPLICANT NO 3
D/O Dr. M. M. Bhardwaj
Address- E-45, A.I.I.M.S
Campus West, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110029
Mobile No- 9899575072
4) Dr. Rekha Chaubey APPLICANT NO 4
D/O: Shri RC Chaubey
Address: Flat No. 02034, Tower
2, ATS Advantage,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh -
201014
Mobile No.: 9560794884
5) Dr.Ashu Bhasin APPLICANT NO 5
D/O: B B Bhasin
Address-602-A Block
Motiakhan, Paharganj
Delhi-110055
Mobile No.- 9818088433
2
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
6) Dr. Suraj Pal Singh APPLICANT NO 6
S/O: Shri Sabha Chand
Address: H. No 4669, Gali No -
112,B- Block, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi-84
Mobile No.: 9312855533
7) Dr.Maumita Kanjilal APPLICANT NO 7
W/O: Dr.Satyajyoti
Address: Flat No. 1004, Tower
B, Gaur Valerio, -Ahinsa Khand
2, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad
Mobile No.: 9818043561
8) Dr. Avdhesh Chandra APPLICANT NO 8
S/O Late Shri Satish Chandra
Gupta
Address: A1/312, Second Floor,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi -110029
Mobile No.: 9910675076
9) Dr. Inder Singh APPLICANT NO 9
S/O: Shri Kalyan Singh
Address: 2001/24, Tuglakabad
Extension, -New Delhi - 110019
Mobile No.: 9711266622
10) Dr.Deeksha Mittal APPLICANT NO 10
D/O: I. D. Mittal
Address: 1077, Nitikhand 1,
Indirapuram,
Ghazibad - 201014
Mobile No.: 9968940248
11) Dr. Neeraj Mahajan APPLICANT NO 11
S/O :Shri Prem Lal Mahajan
Address: VPO-Kuthera,
Tehsil Ghumarwin, Bilaspur,
Himachal -Pradesh-174026
Mobile No.: 9968582496
3
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
12) Dr. Nivedita Pathak APPLICANT NO 12
D/O Dr. K G P Pathak
Address: C-294, First Floor,
Pratap Gally, Nanakchand,
Kotla Mubarakpur
New Delhi-110003
Mobile No.: 9891650176
13) Dr. Rekha Dwivedi APPLICANT NO 13
D/O :Shri R. S. Dwivedi
Address: D-16 & 17,
D-Block, Chhattarpur
Extension,
New Delhi-110074
Mobile No.: 9953119928
14) Dr.Nikhil Kumar APPLICANT NO 14
S/O Shri Ishwar Singh
Address: H.No-B-134,
Maidan Garhi Extn.,
Chhatarpur-New Delhi-110074
Mobile No.: 9968911164
15) Kamal Prakash Bharadwaj APPLICANT NO 15
S/O-Khem Chand Bharadwaj
Address-Gali No. 5 Kabir Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi
Mobile No-9555535091
16) Vipin Kumar Sharma APPLICANT NO 16
S/O: Ram Prakash Sharma
Address: Village - Bas Badam,
Bahrampur, Etmadpur, District,
Agra, U.P.-283202
Mobile No.: 7088339900
17) Sarin Prakash APPLICANT NO 17
S/O: Brahm Prakash
Address: SRS 123, Main Road
Nasirpur Village,
New Delhi - 110045
Mobile No.: 8076806505
4
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
18) Ram Phool APPLICANT NO 18
S/O Shri Chidda Singh
Address: H.No-B53/3, Gali No-
7,
Amar Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094
Mobile No.: 9999437602
19) Abhishek APPLICANT NO 19
S/O : Shri Mohan Lal
Address: 1/11839 E,
Panchsheel Garden,
Naveen Shahdara,
New Delhi - 110032
Mobile No.: 9899913196
20) Leeladhar APPLICANT NO 20
S/O: Shri Dori Lal
Address: C-44/149,
Gali No. 10, Sudama Puri,-
Gamri Ext., Part - II,
Delhi - 110053
Mobile No.: 9069826261
21) Dinesh Kumar APPLICANT NO 21
S/O Shri Phool Chand
Address: Flat No. 242, Ground
Floor, Pocket 6/1,
Sector - 2, Rohini,
Delhi - 110085
Mobile No.: 9654015144
22) Pawan Kumar APPLICANT NO 22
S/O Late Shri Pooran Mal
Address: H. No. 19,
Janta Flats, Vivek Vihar,
Delhi - 110095
Mobile No.: 9818863276
23) Tanu Rishi APPLICANT NO 23
W/O: Shri Gaurav Rishi
Address: I Block, 646
Govindpuram,
Ghaziabad - 201013
Mobile No.: 7838366226
5
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
24) Manoj Kumar APPLICANT NO 24
S/O Late Shri Dev Raj
Address: N-36A, 2
nd
Floor, Gurudwara Road,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi- 110059
Mobile No.: 9899117307
25) Manoj Kumar APPLICANT NO 25
S/O: Shri Rajveer Sharma
Address: H. No. 2554/4,
7hbGali No. 15, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi-110080
Mobile No.: 7982778390
26) Jai Prakash Dwivedi APPLICANT NO 26
S/O Shri Krishan Prasad
Dwivedi
Address: RZJ 26/211, J-Block,
Street No. 2,
West Sagarpur,
Delhi - 110046
Mobile No.: 7042588814
27) Bhupender Singh APPLICANT NO 27
S/O:Shri Chattar Singh
Address: H. No. 63/2,
Yusuf Sarai,
New Delhi -110016
Mobile No.: 9873366050
28) Yatender Singh APPLICANT NO 28
S/O: Late Shri Surender Singh
Address: H.No. 48,
Om Sai Garden,
ChipiyanaBujurg, Gautam Budh
Nagar, UP - 201009
Mobile No.: 9871394187
29) Sukhram APPLICANT NO 29
S/O : Late Shri Ratipal
Address: I-437,
Ansari Nagar East Campus,
New Delhi - 110029
Mobile No.: 9313209870
6
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
30) Neelam Manral APPLICANT NO 30
W/O: Girish Bisht
Address: Flat No. 4, Binsar
Society, Abhay Khand IV,
Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, U.P - 201014
Mobile No.: 9873107638
31) Rahul Vashishtha APPLICANT NO 31
S/O : Shri Darshan Lal
Vashishtha
Address: House No. 1019, Ward
No. 07,
Near RadheyShyam Mandir,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-30
Mobile No.: 9717785085
32) Kapil Parcha APPLICANT NO 32
S/O: Shri Rajender Singh
Address: Deshwal Niwas, RZF-
II/111, Gali No. 2,
Mahavir Enclave,
Palam, Delhi - 110045
Mobile No.: 9599745267
33) Barre Anita APPLICANT NO 33
D/O: Late Shri Barre Mohan
Address: H No. 208,
Munirka Village,
New Delhi - 110067
Mobile No.: 9811552982
34) Amit Kumar APPLICANT NO 34
S/O : Shri Balraj Kumar
Address: B-South Ganesh
Nagar, New Delhi - 110092
Mobile No.: 7982796725
35) Bhupender Bhutani APPLICANT NO 35
S/O: Shri Kishan Chand
Address: House No. 208, Ward
No. 7, Sheikh Wara,
Old Faridabad,
Haryana - 121002
Mobile No.: 7011773110
7
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
36) Narender Singh Bisht APPLICANT NO 36
S/O: Shri Darshan Singh Bisht
Address: RZ10B/10, Street No.
7, Kailash Puri,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi - 110045
Mobile No.: 9717988703
37) Ravindera Puri APPLICANT NO 37
S/O: Shri Manglanand Puri
Address: V.P.O.-
SoundaHabibpur,
Dist. Bulandshahr,
UP - 203132
Mobile No.: 9205387499
38) Ajit Kumar Mishra APPLICANT NO 38
S/O: Surendra
Address: 30/4, Radha Nagar,
Ballabgarh, -Faridabad,
Haryana - 121004
Mobile No.: 9213675544
39) Rashmi Devi APPLICANT NO 39
W/O: Nagender Tyagi
Address: Village-Gharora,
Ballabhgarh,
Faridabad,
Haryana- 121101
Mobile No.: 9953474976
40) Satyender Kumar Rai APPLICANT NO 40
S/O: Shri Ram Naresh Rai
Address: 30B, Radha Nagar,
Ballabhgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana - 121004
Mobile No.: 9968497915
41) Jomimol John APPLICANT NO 41
D/O: Shri M. C. John
Address: Plot No. 115, Sidhi
Vinayak Apartment,
3rd Floor, Flat-3 Desu road,
Ward 1, Mehrauli
New Delhi - 110030
Mobile No.: 8586830464
8
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
42) Deen Dayal Gupta APPLICANT NO 42
S/o: Late Shri Ram Chandra
Prasad
Address: MCF-594/A,
Vijay Nagar, Ballabhgarh,
Faridabad - 121004
Mobile No.: 9968720435
43) Rakesh APPLICANT NO 43
S/O : Shri Om Prakash
Address: F-441, Sector-5, Dr.
Ambedkar Nagar,
Pushpa Bhawan, Houz Khas
South Delhi-110062
Mobile No.: 9810766206
44) Anoop Singh APPLICANT NO 44
S/O: Shri Som Nath Singh
Address: A/3042, Gali No. 3,
S.G.M Nagar, Faridabad,
Haryana - 121001
Mobile No.: 9968896589
45) Lalit Kumar APPLICANT NO 45
S/O: Shri Ram Prasad
Address: H.No-B-1/177, Block
B-1, Nand Nagari,
Delhi-110093
Mobile No.: 8368908282
46) Veena Dawar APPLICANT NO 46
W/O:-Shri Tarun Kumar
Address: Orchid 603, RPS
Green Valley Society Sector
42, -Faridabad,
Haryana - 121003
Mobile No.: 9873707688
47) Mamta APPLICANT NO 47
W/O: Shri Manoj Sharma
Address: Plot No.150-A,
3rd Floor, Shalimar Garden,
Extension-1, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad -201005
Mobile No.: 9818002160
9
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
48) Jagveer Singh APPLICANT NO 48
S/O :Shri Vanwari Lal
Address: H.No. 67A/A, Near
MCD Dispensary,
Masjid Moth, South Extension
Part-II,
New Delhi-110049
Mobile No.: 987043826
49) Prem Ballabh APPLICANT NO 49
S/O-:Late Shri Amba Datt
Address: H.No. 53A, E2 Block,
Pratap Vihar Part-III,
Kirari SulemanNagar,Delhi-
110086
Mobile No.: 9013813810
50) Sangeeta APPLICANT NO 50
W/O:Shri Vipin Chandra
Address: H.No. 1382,
Laxmi Bai Nagar,
New Delhi-110023
Mobile No.: 9968091814
51) Rajesh APPLICANT NO 51
S/O: Sh. Putti Lal
Address: Room No.16, Dhobi
Ghat No.4,
Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road,
NDMC,
New Delhi-110001
Mobile No.: 9013082231
52) Pradeep Kumar APPLICANT NO 52
S/O Shri Rakesh Kumar
Address: H.No. 381-382,
J-Block, Mangol Puri,
New Delhi-110083
Mobile No.: 8076969727
53) Namita APPLICANT NO 53
D/O: Late Shri Kundan Singh
Rawat
Address: 960Z, Z-Block,
Type-II Near Gurudwara,
Timarpur, Delhi-110054
Mobile No.: 9958203208
10
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
54) Bhim Singh Panwar APPLICANT NO 54
S/O: Shri Balbir Singh
Address: Khasra No.31/8/2
Uttarakhand
Colony Samaridhi, Near
mohalla Clinic, Burari,
New Delhi-110084
Mobile No.: 8700682448
55) Jijo Joseph APPLICANT NO 55
S/O: Shri Joseph
Address: House No.147,
Room No.1, Sarai Jullena, New
Friends Colony,
Delhi-110025
Mobile No.: 7065341230
56) Mahendar Kumar APPLICANT NO 56
S/O: Kanhaiya Lal
Address: K-73, Shakurpur,
Anandwas,
New Delhi-110034
Mobile No.: 7982126765
57) Pritam Singh Khalsa APPLICANT NO 57
S/O: Shri Satnam Singh
Address: RZD-3/120, Flat
No.106, Gali No.7,
Mahavir enclave Part-I,
Dwarka,Sec-1A, Delhi-110045
Mobile No.: 8287732725
58) Vipin Pal Kadian APPLICANT NO 58
S/O: Shri Ishwar Singh Kadian
Address: H.No-B-134, Maidan
Garhi Extension,
Chhatarpur Road, South Delhi,
Chhatarpur-110074
Mobile No.: 9911026563
59) Vishwajeet Singh APPLICANT NO 59
S/O:Akhileshwar Singh
Address: H.No-75, Gali No-8,
Harikesh Nagar,
Palla, Tilpat, Faridabad,
Haryana-120013
Mobile No.: 9213935591
11
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
60) Rama Bisht APPLICANT NO 60
D/O:Bhagwat Singh Bisht
Address: D1/1, Khasra No-101
and 102, Second Floor,
Baba -Dairy,Rajpur, Khurd,
Chhattarpur, Delhi-110068
Mobile No.: 7827531521
61) Deepak APPLICANT NO 61
S/O: Late Shri Gopi Chand
Address: H.No-9, Staff Quarter
2/50, Niti Marg,
Embassy of Hungry, Chanakya
Puri,
New Delhi-110021
Mobile No.: 9654111070
62) Sarita Kumari APPLICANT NO 62
D/O:Late Shri Sharda Lal
Address: D-58 D, South
Extension Part-I,
New Delhi-110049
Mobile No.: 9999473589
63) Amit Kumar APPLICANT NO 63
S/O- Shri Ram Kumar
Address: House No A-1/29,
Khasara No. 603, A1
Block Birela Colony,
Chattarpur, New Delhi -74
Mobile No.: 9013844236
64) Ghanshyam APPLICANT NO 64
S/O : Shri Ram Pragat
Address: A-7, Amrit Nagar,
South Extension Part-I,
Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi - 110003
Mobile No.: 9958973306
65) Ritu Raman Sharma APPLICANT NO 65
S/O: Late Akshaya Lal Sharma
Address: J-494,Jaitpur, Part-1,
Arpan Vihar, Badarpur,
New Delhi - 110044
Mobile No.: 9910738381
12
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
66) Satheesh Thomas APPLICANT NO 66
S/O: Shri P C Thomas
Address: 96-E, Flat No. 3B,
G/F, Yash Apartments,
Ward No-2,Mehrauli,
New Delhi
Mobile No.: 8802505626
67) Anant Ram APPLICANT NO 67
S/O: Shri Ram Sagar
Address: 152, First Floor,
Church Gali,
Masjid Moth, South Ex-II,
New Delhi-110049
Mobile No.: 9013099347
68) Amrit APPLICANT NO 68
S/O: Shri Bhagat Ram
Address: Village Rundhi,
Distt. Palwal, Haryana
Mobile No.: 9868490066
69) Santosh Kumar APPLICANT NO 69
S/O:Shri Ram Niwas Verma
Address: RZ-143, L-Block, Vijay
Enclave, Dwarka
New Delhi - 110045
Mobile No.: 9811239874
70) Rajeev Kumar Pathania APPLICANT NO 70
S/O: Late Shri Ranjeet Singh
Address: G-66, Sangam Vihar,
Near Amrita
Public School, New Delhi
Mobile No.: 9289264719
71) Ramesh APPLICANT NO 71
S/O: Shri Ram Dayal
Address: A-216/12,
Gautam Nagar, New Delhi
Mobile No.: 9013312176
72) Meenakshi Tyagi APPLICANT NO 72
D/O: Shri Jai Prakash
Address: H. No. 115A, Sector -
11C, Faridabad, Haryana
Mobile No.: 9711235560
13
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
73) Ram Sahay APPLICANT NO 73
S/O: Shri Ram Anjor
Address: I-237, West Ansari
Nagar,
New Delhi - 110029
Mobile No.: 9013086062
74) Pooja APPLICANT NO 74
W/O: Shri Ravidher Kumar
Address: 30/A, Khasra No. 7/1,
Deepak Vihar,
Najafgarh, Delhi - 110043
Mobile No.:9968986793
75) Subhas Bora APPLICANT NO 75
S/O: Shri Phatik Bora
Address: 10/2 Block 10, Sector -
1, PushpVihar,
New Delhi -110017
Mobile No.: 9911773437
76) Ajay APPLICANT NO 76
S/O: Shri Bhai Lal
Address: I-407, Ansari Nagar,
AIIMS Campus,
New Delhi - 110029
Mobile No.: 9971537011
77) Ranjit Kumar APPLICANT NO 77
S/O: Shri Sidheshwar Prasad
Address: 112/2, 4th floor,
Mohammadpur, R K Puram,
New Delhi - 110066
Mobile No.: 9958428107
78) Sonu Kumar APPLICANT NO 78
S/O; Shri Suresh Kumar
Address: Minto Road, Railway
Station.
Mobile No.: 9899878195
14
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
79) Munish Kumar APPLICANT NO 79
S/O: Shri Damodar Prasad
Pathak
Address: H. No. 256, Gali No. 6,
Surya Vihar, Part-1,
Sehatpur Extn., Faridabad,
Haryana - 121013
Mobile No.: 9650587184
80) Harish Chandra Bidua APPLICANT NO 80
S/O: Shri Suresh Kumar Bidua
Address: D-411, Chungi No. 03,
Lal Kuan,
New Delhi - 110044
Mobile No.: 8800485190
81) Sunil Kumar APPLICANT NO 81
S/O: Late Shri Jagat Ram
Address: H. No. 115,
Near Sudarshan -Hospital,
Mukesh Colony,
Ballabhgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana - 121004
Mobile No.: 6230984377
82) Satendar Kumar APPLICANT NO 82
S/O:Shri Kamal Singh
Address: H. No-358, Block A,
Sudamapuri Colony,
Near Jeewan -Jyoti Church
Vijay Nagar
Gaziabad - 201009
Mobile No.: 8851371464
83) Sunil Kumar APPLICANT NO 83
S/O:Shri Roshan Lal
Address: Flat No-11, 2nd floor,
178c-6 , Ward No-2
Mehrauli Delhi-110030
Mobile No.: 9910740364
84) Vikas Khan APPLICANT NO 84
S/O: Shri Shaukat Ali
Address: V-54, Street-24,
Vijay Park, Moujpur
Delhi-110053
Mobile No.: 9868606166
15
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
85) Vikas Kumar APPLICANT NO 85
S/O:Late Shri Om Parkash
Address: Village- Pawta, post-
Pali, Faridabad
Haryana 121004
Mobile No.: 9999009577
86) Ram Prakash Yadav APPLICANT NO 86
S/O:Shri Pat Yadav
Address: X-178, Gali no-4,
Bharat Vihar Prem Nagar-2
Kirari Delhi
Mobile No.: 7503717912
87) Pappu Prasad APPLICANT NO 87
S/O:Late Shri Mundrika Prasad
Address: H. No- B-5/16, A-2
Block Phase-5,
Jaitly Farm, Aya Nagar
Delhi - 110047
Mobile No.: 9013278203
88) Abdul Wahid Hussain APPLICANT NO 88
S/O: Md. Salim
Address: 8S/1E, Hauz Rani,
Gandhi Park, Malviya Nagar,
Delhi- 110017
Mobile No.: 8826940512
89) Girraj Singh APPLICANT NO 89
S/O:Sh. Rampal
Address: Village Sotai, Holi
Patti Post Fatehpur, Billoch,
Teh-Ballabhgarh, District -
Faridabad, Haryana 121004
Mobile No.: 9416903445
90) Ram Janam Verma APPLICANT NO 90
S/O:Shri BhagwanDeen Verma
Address: E-254A,
Gali no-9, Aya Nagar,
Delhi - 110047
Mobile No.: 9968407293
16
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
91) Inder Singh APPLICANT NO 91
S/O: Late Shri Pan Singh
Address: Prop No. 22 & 23,
UGF Flat No. A-2,
Kh No. 116,117/1,
117/2 Rajpur Khurd Extn.,
Delhi - 110068
Mobile No.: 9968100407
92) Rahul Kumar APPLICANT NO 92
S/O:Shri Chakradhar
Chaudhary
Address: B-697/1A, Sangam
Vihar
Delhi - 110062
Mobile No.: 9953589040
93) Rohini Dubey APPLICANT NO 93
D/O: Shri Shiv Prasad Dubey
Address: Green View
Apartment,
Chattarpuer, Delhi
Mobile No.: 9354060127
94) Ajab Singh APPLICANT NO 94
S/O: Shri Ram pal Singh
Address: 205, Bisrakh Grater
Noida, UP
Mobile No.: 9910959080
95) Savinder Sokhi APPLICANT NO 95
D/O:Shri S.S. Sokhi
Address: F-5, 1st Floor Nandi
Residency,
Chattarpur, Delhi
Mobile No.: 9650916252
96) Kamlesh Kumar Pandey APPLICANT NO 96
S/O : Late Shri Brij Nandan
Pandey
Address: House No. 41A, Gopal
Nagar Extension,
Phase 1, Najafgarh
Delhi-110043
Mobile No.: 9873749147
17
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
97) Sandeep Kumar APPLICANT NO 97
S/O: Shri Jai Prasad
Address: B-1336, 2nd Floor,
Mayur Vihar Phase -3, Delhi -
110096
Mobile No.: 9821156474
98) Brijesh Kumari APPLICANT NO 98
W/O: Hemant Kumar Niwati
Address: House No. 02,
Sunlight Colony No. 01,
P.O. Jungpura,
New Delhi - 110014
Mobile No.: 9967148850
99) Bijesh Kumar APPLICANT NO 99
S/O : Chandrama Majhi
Address - E 43 Raja Puri, Gali
No 13, Delhi 110059
Mobile No -9868022280
100) Renjith Appukuttan APPLICANT NO 100
S/O: Appukuttan
Address : House No. 85, Flat
No. 107, First Floor,
Ashiyana apartment, Ward No.
4, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030
Mobile No- 9650234041
101) Ajit Kumar APPLICANT NO 101
S/O :Late Ram Chandra Ram
Sehwag Apartment, Flat No 8,
3rd Floor Plot No 37 -Ward No
1 Mehrauli
New Delhi-110030
Mobile No- 9873460616
18
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
102) Atul Jain APPLICANT NO 102
S/O : Sri Hukum Chandra Jain
338 Masjid Moth, South Ex-
Part 2
New Delhi-110049
Mobile No- 9968817723
103) Kamlesh Kumar APPLICANT NO 103
S/O: Late Shri Ram Kishan
Address: B-503, DDA Flat,
Bhoomhien Camp, Kalka Ji,
New Delhi - 110019
Mobile No.: 9717659192
104) Deepak Divekar APPLICANT NO 104
S/O: Shri ShivdassDivekar
Address: Flat No. 9, UGF,
Swastik Residency,
Khasra No. 322, NEB Sarai,
New Delhi - 110068
Mobile No.: 9868357761
105) Ram Sumer APPLICANT NO 105
S/O: Shri Ram Pal
Address: H. No. I-394,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi - 110029
Mobile No.: 9350107692
Ram Babu Father's
Name-Harish chandra Address-
106) E-75 mittal chowk Prahladpur
New Delhi-110044
Mob.9968116201
Sandeep Father's Name: Sh.
Subash Singh Address: House
107) no-654 gali no- 16 near shiv
shakti mandir wazirabad village
delhi-110084
Mobile no :9312320989
19
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Ritesh Singh, Mr. Kavish Aggarwal, Ms.
Shabnam Kataria, Mr. Shubham Kumar, Mr. Uttam Kumar, Mr.
Vishal Singh, Mr. Swaraj Pathak, Mr. Preetam Runthala)
Versus
1. All India Institute of medical Sciences (AIIMS Delhi),
Through its Director,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-110029
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Through its Secretary,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. SK Tripathi for Mr. Gyanendara Singh, Mr.
VSR Krishna)
20
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
ORDER (ORAL)
This Miscellaneous Application No. 2507/2025 was heard on 10.06.2025 and the respondents were directed to go through the list of 107 applicants provided with the O.A. and the matter was listed again on 13.06.2025. The respondents were directed to go through the list of 107 applicants.
2. On 13.06.2025, the O.A. no. 2222/2025 was heard and an order was passed. Today again, the matter was listed for hearing on M.A. No. 2507/2025 as well MA No. 2552/2025 for Interim Direction. The matter was heard. A perusal of the list of 107 applicants reveals that the applicants are engaged in different capacities in the projects and schemes of AIIMS for varied duration of time of engagement. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that all the applicants are similarly placed and are similarly governed under the guidelines on engagement and absorption under various projects and schemes of AIIMS. They further state that 83 applicants are still working, whereas, 24 applicants have been released/removed by the respondents' authorities at varied intervals of time. They also referred to guidelines issued by the respondents vide their letter dated 09.01.2025 on the issue of the consideration of petition/request for absorption/regularization of research staff in the regular post of AIIMS, New Delhi. The guidelines issued by the respondents (AIIMS) dated 26.09.2008 have also been placed before me which 21 Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 deals with regularization of research staff who have completed 15 years of service in the various research projects at AIIMS. The guidelines dated 09.01.2025 issued by the respondents (AIIMS) have been issued in the case of Shri Vishwa Deepak Bamola, Shri Ajay, Shri Sarin Prakash and Ms. Manumita Kanjilal put together they are 4 in number. These guidelines are mere cryptic reproduction of parameter under which the cases of regularization of contractual employees needs to be processed.
3. As mentioned above, perusal of list of applicants (107) in the instant O.A. reveals that they have been engaged in different capacities as Scientists, Research Officers, Consultants, Project Coordinators, Field Investigators, Attendants, Assistants, MTS, Office Assistants etc. Though they may have been engaged in the different projects and schemes with different qualifications for engagement, however, they are contractual workers engaged by Respondents (AIIMS) and are suitable for absorption subject to rendering requisite service and having required qualification.
Learned counsel for the respondents also stresses the point that the applicants are engaged in different projects, having different academic and experience relating qualifications, therefore, they are not similarly placed candidates.
22Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
4. The guidelines on regularization of research staff issued from time to time by the respondents (AIIMS) provides for regularization of research staff engaged in projects and schemes.
However, the order dated 09.01.2025 of respondents (AIIMS) issued in the case of 4 applicants (supra) in pursuance to the order of this Tribunal merely refers to the policy guidelines which are broader parameters under which the system for absorption could be considered. For facility of reference the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"7. The grounds on which the Governing Body did not approve the absorption of research staff into regular posts are elaborated as under:
Violation of Recruitment Rules: Directly absorbing research staff into regular positions would violate the established recruitment rules for those posts. These rules likely outline specific criteria, procedures, and eligibility requirements for filling regular posts. Further there are established procodurcs for filling up the regular posts which include an open competition by calling the applications from eligible candidates and conducting selection process such as written test, interview keeping in view the reservation position and other relevant guidelines of the Government in this regard. Direct absorption/appointment of research staff on these posts would circumvent these established procedures.
Compromise of Merit-Based Selection: By not adhering to the regular recruitment process, direct absorption/appointment of research staff on the regular posts of the Institute would compromise the principle of merit-based selection. This principle ensures that the most qualified candidates are selected for positions based on their skills, qualifications, and performance in a fair and competitive process in compliance to the recruitment rules for the post. Further this is also in line with the principle of equity enshrined in the Constitution as the open competition would provide equal chance to all eligible candidates to compete for vacant posts and getting selected.23
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 Non-compliance with Constitutional Provisions: Direct absorption/appointment of research staff would not be in consonance with constitutional provisions relating to reservation in service for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and other reserved categories. These provisions mandate that a certain percentage of government positions be reserved for candidates from these categories. Direct absorption/appointment of staff would potentially circumvent these constitutional provisions of reservation in service leading to potential discrimination against such category of eligible candidates and inequity in selection/appointment against the vacant public sector posts.
Recommendation for Filling Vacancies: Vacant posts should be filled through the established recruitment rules, ensuring a fair and transparent process that adheres to all relevant regulations and constitutional provisions.
8. In essence, the Governing Body prioritized upholding the integrity of the recruitment process, ensuring equal opportunities for all eligible candidates, and adhering to constitutional provisions. Therefore, it did not approve the absorption/regularization of research project staff.
9. Now, therefore, in view of the decision of the Governing Body on the grounds of maintaining Integrity of the Recruitment Process, Ensuring Equal Opportunities for all, Upholding the Principles of Equity and Justice and to follow Constitutional provisions relating to reservation for SC/ST/OBC and other reserved categories in government employment, the request of Shri Vishwa Deepak Bamola and others for absorption against the regular posts in the Institute cannot be accepted and hence the same is rejected and stands disposed of.
This issues with the approval of the competent authority."
5. Though in Para 6 of the above order, it has been stated that the case of every eligible worker has been examined before coming to such decision. However, no such record is available in the pleadings of O.A. revealing as to whether the suitability of the applicants has been adjudged by the competent authority/Committee formed for said purpose and the competent 24 Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 authority coming to a logical conclusion on the suitability of a particular individual worker fit/non-fit for permanent absorption.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the following judgments:
6.1 Judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the matter of Dr. Amit Yadarao Saraf and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in OA No. 805/2021 decided on June 23, 2023. Para 17 of the order reads as under:
"17. In view of above, the Applicants being similarly situated persons, the denial of service benefits to them would be definitely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Indeed, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava's case laid down the following principles in the matter of service Jurisprudence.
"The most question that requires determination is as to whether the approach of the Tribunal and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled out from the judgments cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
(i) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
(ii) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that 25 Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(iii) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person.
Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
6.2 Order of this Tribunal in the matter of Dr. Amit Solanki Vs. Health and Family Welfare in OA No. 1337/2025 decided on June 23, 2023. Para 16 of the said order reads as under:
"16. Thus, such action of the respondents cannot be construed in consonance with the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Piara Singh (supra). We further find that Scheme dated 11.05.2011 may be issued with regard to the HRCC Projects employee however, apparently the same has been issued under the approval of the Director General, ICMR i.e. respondent No. 2. The respondents are not entitled to discriminate the employees working under different Projects and that too when the said projects are under the same respondent No. 2. Prima-facie, we find the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referred by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Desh Deepak Srivastava & Ors. vs Delhi High Court & Anr. (supra) is not of any help to the respondents inasmuch as in para 14 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has categorically given a finding 26 Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 that in the said case respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit categorically stating that the appointment of the petitioners was made keeping in mind the stop gap arrangements so as to ensure that the necessary technical assistance continues to be available to Courts, which is not the case in hand, as already noted above. The respondents have attempted to discontinue the applicants and by engaging someone through outsource agency. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that if protection is granted to the applicants by way of interim relief by directing the respondents not to discontinue the services of the applicant, till the matter is considered and decided finally on merit, no irreversible loss and hardship is going to be caused to the respondents."
7. As mentioned above in Para 3, 107 applicants represent diverse functional areas such as Scientists, Research Officers, Consultants, Project Coordinators, Field Investigators, Attendants, Assistants, MTS, Office Assistants etc., however, they have been engaged in different projects and schemes by the respondent no. 1 (AIIMS). In view of judgments (supra), I am of the considered view that the applicants are similarly situated persons and, therefore, the prayer in MA No. 2507/2025 merits consideration.
8. It is also noticed that the issue involved in this case has been elaborately and categorically dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others in SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 decided on 20.12.2024, observing that the persons in regular service for more than 10 years are required to be regularized. Relevant portion of the said Judgment in the case of Jaggo (supra) is extracted below for ready reference:-
27Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 "20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230, it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through 28 Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..."
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
29Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation, 97 F.3d 1187 (9 Cir. 1996) th serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual,"30
Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025
even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression:
Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are 31 Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders 32 Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits."
(emphasis supplied) 8.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh in a recent judgment in WPS No.5629 of 2024 decided on 12.02.2025 in the case of Shyam Sunder Shukla Vs. State of Chattisgarh, decided the identical issue following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo's case (supra) in extenso and concluded as under:-
"8. Considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition and the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above, this writ petition at this stage is disposed off with a direction to the respondent/State to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in service in accordance with law expeditiously, keeping in mind the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra) and Jaggo (supra) as also the Circular issued by the State Government in this regard. The said exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of production of this order."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. The respondents shall also determine if there is a differentiation between contractual workers engaged as research staff and non-research staff. The said position also needs to be 33 Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 examined by the respondents as to what kind of difference is there and how such workers i.e. engaged in research and non-research areas as a part of research project have been dealt with in the past while deciding their claim for absorption. This is important in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicants wherein he has stated that all the workers working in Projects/Scheme, irrespective of nature of their duties are categorized as research staff.
10. Further, guidelines on regularization provides for regularization of research staff. The applicants are working in the respondent organization for considerable time and now seeking absorption. Learned counsel for the applicants stated that 83 applicants are still working. The respondents are directed not to disengage 83 applicants who are still working in the respondents' organization and adjudge their suitability for absorption under the relevant guidelines and rules issued by the respondents themselves.
11. In view of the above, the MA No. 2507/2025 for joining together is allowed.
12. The respondents are given twelve weeks' time to examine each case of 107 contract workers engaged in Research Projects/ Scheme and who are applicants in the Original Application, on merits and take a final decision regarding their absorption in view 34 Item No. 07/ C-II O.A. No. 2222/2025 of guidelines issued by them on 26.09.2008 duly giving weightage to the experience gained by them vis-à-vis canons laid down in para 8 of order dated 09.01.2025 while creating a harmonious balance. After carrying out the above exercise, the decision of the respondents shall be conveyed to every applicant by Respondent No. 1 within another 2 (Two) weeks from the date of completion of stipulated 12 weeks time mentioned above.
13. The OA also stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
14. No order to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) Member (A) Ks/pooja/