Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Doddigarla Silva Kumari vs South Central Railway on 30 October, 2024
1
OA.No.169/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS NO.021/00169/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON 30.09.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 30.10.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI,
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. D.Silva Kumari, W/o Babu
Aged about 37 Years, Occ: Hospital Attendant
Residing at 2-108/2, Gopalpuram, Kamepalli
Karepalli, Khammam, Telangana.
2. S.Laxman, S/o Late S.Ramchander
Aged about 35 Years, Occ: Hospital Attendant
Residing at 6/1, Gandhi Colony, Behind YWCA
Picket, Secunderabad, Telangana State - 500026.
3. S.Maruthi, S/o Hanmanthu
Aged about 29 Years, Occ: Hospital Attendant
Residing at 1-64, Makthal Mandal, Khanapur
Rudrasamudram, Mahabubnagar, Telangana - 509208.
4. BommiVenkata Manoj Kumar
S/o Bommi Venkata Trinadh Narasimha Rao
Aged about 29 Years, Occ: Hospital Attendant
Residing at 11-2-9/2, ayyanna Colony
Janagredigudem Mandal, Near MRO Office
West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.
5. Korra Saidulu, S/o Korra Hussain
Aged about 35 Years, Occ: Hospital Attendant
Residing at 9-11/2, Sri Ram Nagar Colony
Road No.2, Reerjadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLAPA
DN: c=IN, o=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ou=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
postalCode=500004, l=Hyderabad, st=Telangana, street=NO
5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
2.5.4.20=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8
LLI SANDHYA
c2cfaa0a510742c22,
serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba
7768772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected],
cn=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Date: 2024.11.26 17:12:57 +05'30'
2
OA.No.169/2023
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State - 500098.
6. Surpanga Mallesham, S/o Sarpaga Ramulu
Aged about 27 Years, Occ: Hospital Attendant
Residing at 6-165, Namath Pally, Bhongiri Mandal
Nandanam, Nalgonda, Telangana State - 508285. .....Applicants
(By Advocate Smt. Anita Swain)
Vs.
1. Union of India Rep by
It's Executive Director (C&IS)
Ministry of Railways (Railway Board)
R.No.476-L, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Medical Director
Central Hospital, Lallaguda
Secunderabad, Telangana State. ....Respondents
(By Advocates Sri K.Ravi Krishnakanth, Addl.CGSC)
******
3
OA.No.169/2023
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"To set aside/quash the Impugned Common Termination Order No.SCR/P-CH/LGD/110/Para Medi/Contract/Vol-II dated 04-02- 2023, terminating the services of 34 Para-Medical Staff engaged on Contract basis at Central Hospital/Lallaguda w.e.f. 18-02- 2023 (after working hours) to the extent goes against the applicants and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to continue/Regularize the services of applicants with consequential benefits."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:
i. In response to the notification, dated 10.04.2020, issued by the Southern Railways, calling upon candidates to attend the Online/Telephonic Interview for Temporary Engagement of Specialist Doctors, GDMO Doctors, Nursing Superintendents, Lab Assistants and Hospital Attendants at the Central Hospital, Lallaguda, all the applicants attended the Telephonic Interview for the post of Hospital Attendant and they were, accordingly, appointed as Hospital Attendants to work at the Central Hospital, 4 OA.No.169/2023 Lallaguda, on temporary engagement basis for a period of 3 months, vide Office Proceedings, dated 11.06.2020(Annexure-A3).
The applicants joined duty by giving consent for their appointment.
Thereafter, from time to time, this appointment was extended till 04.02.2023 and the applicants completed service of more than 2 and ½ years, without any break.
ii. But the 2nd Respondent, vide the impugned Common Termination Order, dated 04.02.2023, terminated the services of the applicants, without mentioning any cogent reasons and even without giving reasonable notice, which is unfair, unjust, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. Under the guise of Contract No.GEMC-511687714006643, dated 30.01.2023, the respondents have terminated the services of the applicants, without considering the order issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, wherein Clause 5 of the order, dated 03.05.2021, says that-
"The Central Government recommends to State/UT Governments to consider giving preference in Regular Government appointments of Health Professionals through the respective Public Service Commission/other recruitment bodies for those health professionals under this scheme who complete a minimum of 100 days Covid related duty".5 OA.No.169/2023
iii. The Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal, in OA.No.1103/2022, has considered the above order issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and held that all the State Governments and UTs have to give preference to Covid Warriors who have completed the minimum of 100 days of Covid 19 related duty and the same principle is applicable in the facts of the present case and, accordingly, the applicants, who are from poor and middle class background, possessing the required educational qualification and also being eligible for the post of Hospital Attendant and having completed service of more than 2 ½ years, are entitled to the benefit of consideration in regular service. Hence, the termination order, passed by the 2nd Respondent, is liable to be quashed and they are entitled to continuation of their services and also eligible for regularisation of their services with consequential benefits.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants has furnished the following citations in support of his claim:-
i. CAT, PB judgment, dt. 31.05.2024, in OA.No.3750/2022 & batch in Sh. Harsh Madhukar & Ors. vs. The Dy. Secy., M/o Health & Family Welfare.6 OA.No.169/2023
ii. CAT, Chandigarh Bench judgment, dt. 06.02.2023, in OA.No.1103/2022 in Devendra Kumar Saini & Ors. vs. UOI, through its Secy., M/o Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
iii. High Court of Delhi judgment, dt.03.11.2014, in WP(C) No.1741/2914 in Narinder Singh Ahuja and Ors. Vs. The Secy., M/o Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
4. On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement, wherein they have averred as follows:
i. In view of Public Health Emergency due to COVID-19 pandemic, Railway Board had issued instructions to Zonal Railways for engagement of Medical Practitioners (CMPs) and Paramedical Staff, on contract basis, over and above the sanctioned strength of the cadre, to tackle the situation, vide its letter, dated 28.03.2020.
Accordingly, the South Central Railway issued a notification, dated 10.04.2020, to invite applications through email/whatsapp to engage, purely on contract basis, specialist Doctors, GDMO Doctors, Nursing Superintendents, Lab Assistants and Hospital Attendants, from the open market, for a period of three months only.7 OA.No.169/2023
ii. In the notification, it was clearly mentioned under the head "Terms and Conditions" that the Contract Medical Practitioners/Para-
Medical Category candidates, who enter into contract with the Railway, will not have any claim or right for his/her continuity in service or automatic extension of the term of contract services or will not have any right in respect of considering their contract period in regular selection through the Railway Recruitment Board, etc., nor will it confer any right for regularization or absorption. It was also stated that the contract can be terminated by giving notice of 15 days, on both the sides, and that the Railway administration reserves the right to terminate the contract at any time, during the contract before completion of three months period, giving 15 days notice or payment of 15 days remuneration, without assigning any reason whatsoever.
iii. After scrutiny of all the applications received by the South Central Railway, they engaged the Contract Medical Practitioners/Para-
Medical staff, on contract basis, on 11.06.2020, and on other dates, as per the terms and conditions prescribed in the notification.
Based on review, on the outbreak of Novel Corona Virus, the engagement was extended, from time to time, to meet the local 8 OA.No.169/2023 requirements, for handling the Covid-19 pandemic, as per the guidelines of the Railway Board, duly ensuring suitable break in between successive contracts.
iv. As there was considerable reduction in the number of Covid-19 cases, resulting in reduction in work load, 75% of the Contract Medical Practitioners/Para-Medical staff, engaged on contract basis, were terminated w.e.f. 16.03.2022. Only 25% of the Contract Medical Practitioners/Para-Medical staff, engaged on contract basis, were continued up to 30.06.2022, duly ensuring suitable break in between successive contracts.
v. The Railway Board, vide letter, dated 30.06.2022, decided to extend the engagement of retired para-medical staff and hiring of para-medical staff on contract basis within the sanctioned strength, against clear vacancies, for further period of one year, beyond 30.06.2022, i.e., up to 30.06.2023, subject to clear availability of funds. Hiring of contractual staff was to be governed by the existing terms and conditions. It was further advised that engagement/hiring of para-medical staff on contract should be mandatorily done through GeM, i.e., Government e-Marketplace.
Contract No. GEMC-511687714006643, generated on 30.01.2023, 9 OA.No.169/2023 is a Service Level Agreement, providing for 'Healthcare Human Resource Outsourcing Service', facilitated through 'GeM' between the buyer, South Central Railway, and the Service Provider. The purpose of the agreement is to facilitate implementation of Healthcare Resource Outsourcing Services at the buyer's premises. The Service Provider would provide the required equipment and personnel for the mentioned shifts, as per the requirements of the buyer. Human Resources, as a service, on the GeM website, would help provide the Buyers with support services to assist in their day- to-day operations by empanelling Service Providers with manpower adept in the field of Paramedics. The service is geared to feature a full array of qualified professions with different areas of expertise.
vi. As the process of engagement of para-medical staff on contract basis through GeM consumes time, approval of the competent authority(General Manager) was obtained to engage the previously engaged contract staff for a period up to 28.02.2023, to meet the requirement, as a stop gap arrangement. Accordingly, 34 previously engaged contract para-medical staff were engaged, vide OM, dated 18.01.2023.
10OA.No.169/2023 vii. The contract was finalised through GeM, providing for agreement, facilitating implementation of "Healthcare Resource Outsourcing Services", for the period from 15.2.2023 to 14.8.2023. As such, the 34 previously engaged contract para-medical staff, who were engaged, vide OM, dated 18.01.2023, were issued a notice, 15 days prior to termination of their services, w.e.f. 18.2.2023, duly indicating that the contract was finalized through GeM for the above said period, vide letter, dated 04.02.2023. Accordingly, their services were terminated w.e.f. 18.02.2023. The outsourcing staff engaged by the contracted firm joined service on 19.02.2023 and are performing the duties as informed by the Respondents. viii. It is also submitted by the respondents that appointment to the posts of Hospital Assistants is done through the Railway Recruitment Cell(RRC), Secunderabad, which is the nodal agency for recruitment of staff for the posts in Level-1, under the 7th CPC, for the Railways. Selection of candidates is in the final stage. Once the RRC papers pertaining to selected candidates are received, the contract staff engaged through the contracted firm will also be terminated.
11OA.No.169/2023 ix. It is contended by the Respondents that the applicants were engaged for a period of three months on contract and their services were terminated and they were re-engaged with suitable breaks as per Annexure-R4.
x. It is also stated that the Central Govt. have taken a decision to introduce the GeM policy to prevent the abnormalities in engagement for temporary services by the Government. After introduction of the GeM policy, there were no more contract services in the Railways except by outsourcing through the contractor. After engagement of outsourcing staff as per the GeM policy, services of the contract employees were terminated. It is a policy of Government of India and no illegalities and injustice have occurred.
xi. As regards the contract employees, they were engaged purely on contract basis for a specific period. After examination of the terms and conditions, specified in the offer letter, they had submitted their willingness to serve in the Railways, on contract basis, for a particular period and had joined, accordingly. xii. Respondents further contend that, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case and as per the extant 12 OA.No.169/2023 rules, applicants cannot be regularised in their services. After termination of the contract employees from service, as per the laid down procedure, Railways have engaged outsourcing staff through the GeM Portal. At present, no contract employees are working and the policy of engaging contract employees has been discontinued. Hence, the OA is infructuous and is fit to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. In the case before us, the applicants are found to have been engaged on contract basis through order of the South Central Railways, issued on different dates in the Month of June, 2020, as per the terms and conditions in the notification, dt.10.04.2020. According to the Respondents, in order to tackle the COVID-19 Pandemic, Zonal Railways had been intimated, in view of the Public Health Emergency to engage Contract Medical Practitioners(CMPs) and Paramedical Staff, on contract basis, over and above the sanctioned strength. It is noted that the notification, dt.10.04.2020, clearly mentioned under the Terms and Conditions as follows- 13 OA.No.169/2023
"2. The selected candidates have to work in COVID wards."
7. On account of considerable reduction in COVID-19 cases, 75% of the CMPs/Para Medics, engaged on contract, were terminated w.e.f. 16.03.2022. 25% of the CMPs/Paramedics on contract were continued up to 30.06.2022, with a break between their contracts. The Railway Board decided to extend the engagement of retired para-medical staff and of para-medical staff on contractual basis, within the sanctioned strength against clear vacancies for a further period of one year, beyond 30.06.2022, i.e., up to 30.06.2023, subject to availability of funds. Engagement on contract had to be mandatorily done through GeM (Govt. e-Marketplace). 34 previously engaged contract para- medical staff, were engaged vide OM, dt.18.01.2023 and notice of 15 days was issued to them, once agreement through the GeM was finalised for outsourcing of Healthcare services, for the period from 15.02.2023 to 14.08.2023. Accordingly, their services were terminated w.e.f. 18.02.2023. The outsourcing staff engaged through the firm joined service on 19.02.2023 and have been performing duties.
8. It is further stated by the Respondents, at para 2(b), of their reply statement that -
"h. It is also respectfully submitted that, the appointment for the post of Hospital Assistants is being recruited through Railway 14 OA.No.169/2023 Recruitment Cell, Secunderabad which is Nodal agency for recruitment of staff for the posts in Level-1 in 7th CPC for Railways. The selection of candidates is in final stage, once the RRC papers pertaining to selected candidates are received, the contract staff engaged through the contracted firm will also be terminated."
9. In the meantime, as brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the Applicants, Respondents issued a notification, dated 02.08.2024, extending the currency for engagement/hiring of Gr. 'C' para medical staff at CH/LGD, on contractual basis through GeM, within the sanctioned strength against clear vacancies, for period of 1 year, i.e., from 30.06.2024 to 30.06.2025, among the various posts, 26 Hospital Assistants L-1/1800 are there. They have contended that the respondents are replacing the contractual employees with another set through third party outsourcing agency, which is prohibited as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Piara Singh.
10. Applicants, while challenging the impugned order, dt.04.02.2023, and the consequent termination of their contractual engagement, w.e.f. 18.02.2023, have prayed as follows:-
".....consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to continue/Regularize the services of applicants with consequential benefits and pass such other further orders as it may deem fit in the interest of justice."
11. Taking up the first point of Regularisation of the applicants' engagement that was admittedly on contractual basis, after telephonic 15 OA.No.169/2023 interview, the issue is clearly no longer res-integra. In a detailed order in OA.No.806/2022 in Dakshin Railway Employees' Union & Anr. Vs. Southern Railways & Ors., the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai, which comprised of Members including one of us {Hon'ble Sri Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A)}, it has been already decided. The relevant portion of the order, dt. 19.12.2023, is extracted below:-
"27. Starting from the judgment, dt. 10.04.2006, of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999 and batch in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors Vs. Umadevi and Ors, there have been pronouncements to the effect that treating ad hoc or contractual appointees as regular recruits, at a later date, will deprive the other bonafide aspirants, waiting for a chance to join a regular post through regular recruitment, of their due. There cannot be special entry for the contractual employees, enabling them to steal a march over other deserving candidate, through the back door, as regards the contention, on behalf of the applicants, that getting a bond signed by a contractual employee is like forcing an agreement between a lion and a lamb, it is worth mentioning that, we cannot create a right or a situation where the so-called lamb runs with the hare and hunts with the hound. Such a situation will see a flood of litigious employees, having entered as contractual employees, blocking the entry of regular recruits. This OA has been brought on by contractual employees, whose total period of engagement/re-engagement, at the time of filing it, was not even 4 years for the longest serving ones and the latest entrants had completed not even 2 year and that, too, with breaks in the period of engagement/re-engagement.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.17377/2021, in the case of Saroj Kumar Nayak & ors Vs. Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Limited (TRIFED) & Ors had observed as follows:16 OA.No.169/2023
" As the initial appointment of the petitioners was on contractual basis and even in the advertisement itself it was stated that there shall not be any right to claim regularization on the basis of such contractual appointment therefore the petitioners shall not be entitled for regularization on the basis of such appointment. The High Court has rightly refused the regularisation.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications stand disposed of."
29. The Aurangabad Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed in its judgment, dt. 20.09.2022, in WP no.4546 of 2016 in the case of Ganesh Digamber Jambrunkar and ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors as given below:
"25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No.53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No.1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
"28. Thus, this Court has specifically clarified that the judgment in Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra) does not lay down a ratio that persons appointed on purely contractual or temporary basis without following due selection process as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi would also be entitled to regularization of their services. The present petitions have been filed on 18.04.2016 before issuance of the clarification by this Court on 27.04.2017. Thus, in view of the specific clarification issued by this Court by order dated 27.04.2017, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of regularization by relying on the judgment in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra).17 OA.No.169/2023
"34. The petitioners accepted the contractual appointments as well as executed undertakings. They knew from the very beginning that the appointments were purely contractual, for specified time and they were outside the sanctioned posts in the college. Mr.Acharya has in this regard relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra others Vs. Anita and another reported in (2016) 8 SCC 293, in which it is held that after having accepted contractual appointments, appointees are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointments."
"44. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate Ms.Talekar for the petitioners submits that the interim relief has been in operation till date and a breathing time be given to the petitioners to approach the Apex Court.
"45. Considering the reasons for which we are dismissing the writ petitions, the request is rejected."
30. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has put the lid on the debate by upholding the above judgment in the case of Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar and others vs the State of Maharashtra and ors, vide its ruling on 12-9-2023, SLP (C) No. 2543, wherein it has been observed that, "The petitioners were all appointed in Shri Guru Govind Singh Institute of Engineering and Technology on contractual basis and their appointments were made sometime in the year 2011. They are aggrieved as a regular recruitment process has started and we are apprised by learned counsel for the respondent-State that at present such process stands completed now but appointment letters are yet to be issued. The petitioners want to be regularized in the post for which such appointment process has been started ....."
"The issue with which we are concerned in this petition is as to whether by working for a long period of time on contractual basis, the petitioners have acquired any vested legal right to be appointed in the respective posts on regular basis."
"We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find their continuous working has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed. In the event there was any 18 OA.No.169/2023 scheme for such regularization, they could have availed of such scheme but in this case, there seems to be none. We are also apprised that some of the petitioners have applied for appointment through the current recruitment process. The High Court has rejected their claim mainly on the ground that they have no right to seek regularization of their service. We do not think any different view can be taken.
"The present petition shall stand dismissed.
"Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
x x x x x x x x x
32. In the light of the aforesaid discussions and the decision of the Hon'ble High Courts and their confirmation by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we find that the applicants have failed to make out a case for accepting their prayers in the OA.
33. The Original Application is, therefore, dismissed."
12. Thus, as held by the High Court and the Apex Court vide the orders cited supra, there is no question of accepting the prayer of the applicants who worked as contractual workers, for regularisation of their services.
13. The next point is whether they could continue in their contractual engagement beyond 18.02.2023. We have gone through the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the Applicants. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal in its order, dt.31.05.2024, in OA No.3750 of 2022, Sh.Harsh Madhukar & Ors. vs. Health and Family Welfare & batch, has, after considering the similar cases, concluded that - 19 OA.No.169/2023
"15. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Piara Singh's case (supra) and that by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Narinder Singh Ahuja's case (supra) and Shikha Jain's case (supra), it is evident that replacement of a contract employee(s) by fresher(s), junior(s) or even a staff from an outsource agency is prohibited. No statutory provision has been brought to our notice by the respondents, which takes away the right of preferential treatment to the daily wager or contractual employees, who are already engaged and are working for continuation on contract to junior(s), fresher(s) or the person(s) to be engaged through outsourcing agency to be taken away.
16. In view of the facts as noted hereinabove and law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered view that action of the respondents of not continuing the engagement of the applicants as Driver on contract basis and their action of replacing them by another set of contractual employees through outsourcing is not tenable in the eyes of law.
17. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the present OA is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to continue the applicants on the same terms and conditions of on contract basis as long as there is work available with the respondents and/or till the vacancies are filled up on regular basis. The respondents are further directed to issue consequential order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs."
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present OAs are partly allowed with the following directions/orders:-
(i) The respondents shall be bound by their statement regarding payment of admissible dues, salary, perks, etc. to the applicants as recorded hereinabove in para 8 of Order dated
8.5.2024, which is reproduced in para 1 above;
(ii) The respondents shall continue the applicants in preference to any junior(s) and fresher(s) on daily wages/contractual 20 OA.No.169/2023 basis engaged directly and/or through any outsourcing agency; (emphasis added)
(iii) The respondents shall take an appropriate decision in respect of grant of relaxation of age and/or for additional weightage in view of notification dated 3.5.2021 of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, referred to hereinabove while considering them for appointment on regular basis; and
(iv) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order."
14. In the order, dt.06.02.2023, in the case of Devendra Kumar Saini and others vs. Union of India and others, in OA.No.1103 of 2022, of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, at Chandigarh, it is recorded that- 'Union Territory, Chandigarh has already given the preference to the candidates who have worked in Covid 19 between the 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2022 in the National Health Mission, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chandigarh vide Public Notice dated 29.06.2022'.
15. The final aspect of continuation of contractual employees, till the appointment of regular staff, is also made clear in the above order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal.
16. In the light of the settled position as per the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court of Delhi, which are reiterated in the orders supra, of the Principal Bench and the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chandigarh, no appointments can be made for replacing one set of 21 OA.No.169/2023 contractual employees with another set of contractual employees. Therefore, the respondents are directed to re-engage the applicants who have been replaced by another set of contractual employees, albeit through GeM. Respondents are directed to comply with the above directions and pass appropriate orders within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. With the above directions, the OA is disposed of. MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
30.10.2024
/ps/
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: c=IN, o=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ou=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
postalCode=500004, l=Hyderabad, st=Telangana, ALLI street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, 2.5.4.20=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ce SANDHYA af8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], cn=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Date: 2024.11.26 17:16:40 +05'30'