Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Karamvir Singh vs National Technical Research ... on 7 March, 2025
1
Item 26
OA No.1469/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.1469/2015
Order Reserved on: 06.12.2024
Order
er Pronounced on :07.03.2025
:
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Karamvir Singh,
S/o Late Shri Mukhtiar Singh,
R/o H. No--1,
Hauz Khas Village,
New Delhi--110016
Aged about 47 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
2. Shekhar Kumar Singh,
S/o S/o Late S.R Singh
R/o 6-H,
H, Prahlad Bhawan,
2nd Floor,
Shahpur Jat,
New Delhi--110049
Aged about 41 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
3. Ashok Kumar Singh,
S/o Shri Devendra Singh,
R/o A-59,
59, SF, WZ
WZ-Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
Aged about 48 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
4. Bhushan Kumawat,
S/o Shri R. S. Kuma
Kumawat
R/o 6H, Shahpur Jat,
Prahlad Bhawan,
2
Item 26
OA No.1469/2015
New Delhi--110049
Aged about 41 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
5. Pradipt Kumar Mohanty,
S/o Late Sh Raghunath Mohanty
R/o D-284,
284, Gali No
No-4,
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi--110080
Aged about 43 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
6. Sheikh Fasihuddin,
S/o Late Alauddin
R/o 3596, Katra Dina Beg,
Lal Kuan, New Delhi
Delhi-110006
Aged about 50 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
7. Sujata,
W/o Govind C. Mishra
R/o Flat No
No-1082, Pocket-A,
Sec-А, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi
Aged about 44 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
8. Veronica D,
W/o Balamurugan G
R/o 888/8, Flat No
No-3,
Ramji Apartment,
Mehrauli, New Delhi
Delhi-110030
Aged about 38 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
9. Anjana Datta,
D/o Late Sh R.N Dutta
R/o H-3/68A,
3/68A, Bangali Colony,
Mahavir Enclave,
3
Item 26
OA No.1469/2015
New Delhi--110045
Aged about 44 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
10. Rohit Kumar Singh,
S/o Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh,
R/o F 3, Plot No 46, Vidhayak Colony,
Nyay Khand
Khand-Ist, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad
Ghaziabad-201010
Uttar Pradesh
Aged about 32 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
11. Shadabul Haque,
S/o Late Capt. S.M. Ansarul Haque,
R/o T-20,
20, Ward No.8, Mehrauli,
New Delhi--30
Aged about 46 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
12. Mohd. Shahid,
S/o Late Abdul Qais
R/o C-11,
11, FF, Hauz Rani,
Malviya Nagar,
New Selhi--110017
Aged about 42 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
13. Jagat Mitra Singh,
S/o Shri Padmaraj Singh,
R/o SQ-17,
17, Munirka Enclave,
New Delhi--110067
Aged about 445 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
14. Reyazuddin,
S/o Shri Abdul Azim,
R/o 95/9, Kishan Garh,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
Delhi-110070
4
Item 26
OA No.1469/2015
Aged about 40 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
15. Mohd. Jalil,
S/o Shri Mohd Haroon
R/o 138/9, Kishan Garh,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi--110070
Aged about 39 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
16. Mohd. Hayatuddin,
S/o Mohd Mohiuddin
R/o 336/B, Budh Vihar,
IV Floor, Munirka,
New Delhi
Delhi-110067
Aged about 40 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
17. Sushil Kumar Baitha,
S/o Shri Mahesh Baitha,
R/o 519, C/o Mahavir Prasad,
Ghitorni,
New Delhi--110030
Aged about 37 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
18. Manish Sharma,
S/o Shri R.R.Sharma,
R/o D-75,
75, Dashratpuri,
Street-9,
9, Sector
Sector-14, Dwarka,
New Delhi--110045
Aged about 29 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
19. Sher Singh,
S/o Shri Hira Lal,
R/o Dhani--Dehara,
5
Item 26
OA No.1469/2015
Post- Jassi ka Bass,
Neem Ka Thana,
Sikar, (Rajasthan) 332714
Aged about 29 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
20. Surendra Yadav,
S/o Shri Swami Nath Yadav,
R/o 6/145, 2nd Floor,
Vipul Khand, Gomati Nagar,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226010
Aged about 28 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
21. Vipin Kumar,
S/o Shri Kailash Singh
R/o E-32,
32, Om Vihar,
Phase -5,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi--110059
Aged about 27 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
22. Asha,
D/o Shri Kaptan Singh,
R/o H.No.359, Ishwar Colony,
Bawana,
Delhi-110039
110039
Aged about 32 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
23. Maurya Dipak Kumar,
S/o Shri Balram Maurya,
R/06/145, 2nd Floor,
Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226010
Aged about 30 Years
(Contractual employee in NTRO)
6
Item 26
OA No.1469/2015
24. Mrs. Anuradha Satti,
D/o Shri Amarnath Reddy,
R/o BA-9F,
9F, DDA Flat, Munirika,
New Delhi--67
Aged about 32 Years
(Contractual employee in NT
NTRO) ..Applicants
(By Advocate :Mr. A.K. Behera, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Ajesh Luthra, Mr. A.P. Singh and Mr.
Jatin Parashar)
VERSUS
1. The Chairman National Technical Research
Organisation Block
Block-3,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067
2. Controller of Administration (COA)
National Technical Research Organisation
Block-3,
3, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
110067. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. R.K. Jain)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
The present Original Application (OA) was jointly filed by 82 applicants. Among them, 31 applicants were initially appointed on a casual basis as Monitor Monitor-Indian Language and Monitor Monitor-Foreign Foreign Language in the Central 7 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 Monitoring Service (CMS) under the Ministr Ministry of Information and Broadcasting until 01.04.2005.
2. On 01.04.2005, the CMS under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was transferred to the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) pursuant to Presidential Orders dated 31.03.2005 and 13.07.2005. At the time of transfer, all personnel working in CMS under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting underwent a scrutiny and interview process conducted by NTRO. Only those who successfully cleared the scrutiny and interview were absorbed by NTRO. Those who failed were discontinued from service. This was done in accordance with Para 3 of the Presidential Order dated 13.07.2005 i.e., "3 3 All sanctioned posts, including vacant posts, along with incumbents in position stand transferred to NTRO wef 1.04,2005. The present incumbents will be treated initially on deemed deputation with NTRO for a period of six months only up to 50,09.2005. The NTRO will frame the Recruitment Rules and service conditions within a period of six months of transfer NTRO will also give option to the employees of Central Monitoring Service either to get absorbed in NTRO or to revert to their parent cadres. However, the absorption of the officers, who have opted to stay 8 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 in CMS (NTRO) would be subject to their suitability to be decided by NTRO Officers not found suitable for absorption in NTRO would be repatriated to their parent cadres"
cadres".. Consequently, all 31 applicants appointed in the erstwhile CMS up to 01.04.2005 were deemed to be on deputation to NTRO, with an option for absorption in NTRO.
3. All 31 applicants successfully passed the scrutiny and interview process conducted by NTRO as mandated under Para 3 of the Presidential Order dated 13.07.2005.
4. It is pertinent to note that although ACRs/APARs are not maintained ffor or casual/contractual employees, the NTRO maintained ACRs/APARs for all the applicants. The remaining 51 applicants (out of the total 82) were appointed post post-2005 2005 in NTRO through public advertisements for direct recruitment. These 51 applicants were selected ed through the prescribed process of direct recruitment. However, despite the nature of their selection, their appointment letters stated that they were engaged on a contractual basis.
5. A plain reading of the advertisements clearly indicates that the rec recruitment ruitment process was for direct appointments, and these 51 applicants were appointed 9 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 accordingly in NTRO after due selection. Between 2005 and 2013, all 82 applicants (comprising 31 from CMS and 51 recruited post post-2005) 2005) submitted multiple representations se seeking eking regularization/absorption from the date of their initial appointment, citing their long long-standing meritorious service and the provisions of Para 3 of the Presidential Order dated 13.07.2005. This factual position is undisputed.
6. On 24.06.2013, the rrespondents espondents sought the willingness of all 82 applicants for regularization, pursuant to Para 3 of the Presidential Order dated 13.07.2005 and in response to their representations. Before seeking their willingness, the respondents undertook an Intelligence Bureau ureau (IB) clearance for the applicants in furtherance of the regularization process. Between June and July 2013, all 82 applicants submitted their willingness for absorption in NTRO. From 24.06.2013 to 2015, the process of regularization of all 82 applica applicants nts remained under consideration. In 2015, the respondents introduced a new contractual employment agreement, requiring all 82 10 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 applicants to sign it. This new agreement contained a clause barring the applicants from claiming regularization in the departmen department, t, which was met with strong opposition from all the applicants.
7. Aggrieved by this development, on 16.04.2015, all 82 applicants filed the present OA No. 1469/2015 and seeking the following relief (s):
(s):-
"a) direct the respondents to culminate the processs of regularization and regularize the applicants w.e.f. the date of their initial engagement with all consequential benefits forthwith.
b) award costs of the proceedings; and
c) pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
8. On 24.04.2015, the OA was listed for a preliminary hearing, during which the applicants sought interim relief. The respondents gave an undertakin undertakingg before the Tribunal that the applicants would not be terminated. This 11 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 statement, recorded by the Hon'ble Tribunal, has the force of a binding order under the law.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants informed that two committees had been constituted by order dated 06.02.2015 to examine the feasibility of the applicants' absorption. Meetings of these committees had already been held on 16.04.2015, and the matter was awaiting approval by the competent authority. The respondents further stated that, subject to the availability of vacancies, regularization of the applicants would be considered.
10. It is further submitted that a revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was subsequently issued, categorizing contractual employees, including the applicants, into to Groups A, B, C, and D while removing their post/cadre nomenclature. This altered their service conditions, which had been governed under CCS Rules, thereby depriving them of benefits under the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC). Additionally, the Linguist cadre was merged with the Analyst cadre. Aggrieved, the applicants filed MA No. 959/2017 in OA No. 1469/2015. 12 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015
11. On 12.05.2017, by a notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), NTRO was designated as an intelligence organization. Prior to this, n neither either NTRO nor the CMS under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was classified as an intelligence organization. On 03.05.2018, the applicants filed an additional affidavit annexing four documents, which were referenced by the respondents in Para 5 of MA No. 1266/2023. These documents pertained to the regularization process. The respondents contended that these documents were classified as "Secret" and alleged that the applicants had violated Section 3(c) of the Intelligence Organization (Restriction ion of Rights) Act, 1985. Consequently, the respondents filed MA No. 1266/2023 on or around 31.03.2023, seeking redaction of these documents from the case record.
12. It is further stated that on 23.01.2022, even before filing MA No. 1266/2023, the respond respondents ents issued show cause notices to all 82 applicants, questioning why they should not be terminated for submitting these four 13 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 documents along with their additional affidavit dated 03.05.2018. Following the issuance of show cause notices, 36 applicants withd withdrew rew from OA No. 1469/2015. Despite receiving identical show cause notices, these 36 applicants were permitted to continue their contractual employment without any adverse action. Meanwhile, 23 applicants either retired, passed away, or voluntarily left ser service.
Eighteen of the remaining 23 applicants filed OA No. 355/2023 against the show cause notice dated 23.01.2023 before this Tribunal, fearing their termination on the pretext of submitting official documents to the Hon'ble Court.
13. On 06.02.2023, this Tribunal allowed the applicants to respond to the show cause notices and directed the respondents not to pass any adverse orders pursuant thereto. However, on 01.04.2023, 25 applicants who had already responded to the show cause notice and against whom no adverse order had been passed were discontinued from service. Subsequently, on 05.04.2023, the respondents issued advertisements for Analyst posts in 14 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 various languages immediately after discontinuing the applicants. On 10.04.2023, the 23 applicants who we were discontinued despite the Tribunal's interim orders in OA No. 1469/2015 and OA No. 355/2023 filed MA No. 1269/2023, seeking contempt action and reinstatement.
14. In their reply dated 02.06.2023 to MA No. 1269/2023, the respondents cited two reasons for denying regularization: (a) the Supreme Court's judgment in Uma Devi's case, and (b) the alleged violation of Section 3(c) of the Intelligence Organization (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1985. On 19.09.2023, this Tribunal decided to hear both the OA and MA o onn merits together. The applicants presented their arguments accordingly.
15. It is evident that the applicants have been deprived of their service continuity solely because they are pursuing legal remedies for regularization. Learned counsel for the applicant ant submits that the respondents have relied upon the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors Ors.,, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The said case pertains to appointments made illegally without a public 15 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 advertisement. However, the present case does not involve illegal appointments or casual appointments. The applicants were appointed following a due process of recruitment duly approved by the then then-competent authority. Moreover, paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi judgment creates an exception for persons who were irregularly appointed but have continued in service for ten years or more. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that all such suitable persons must be regularized as a one one-
time measure.
16. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the following judgments:
judgments:-
1. Nihal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 65 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the principle laid down in Uma Devi and directed the regularization of employees who had rrendered continuous long service at the time of necessity.
2. Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 13 SCC 432 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraph 53 of Uma Devi, 16 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 directed the regularization of employees who had completed leted ten years of service, along with consequential benefits and arrears of pay.
3. Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 238 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle established in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi and d directed the regularization of employees who had completed ten years of service, along with consequential benefits and arrears of pay.
4. Raman Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) SCC Online SC 1018 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the discriminat discriminatory ory treatment meted out to two sets of similarly situated employees, thereby upholding the principle of equal treatment in service matters.
5. Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 (Paras 24 24-26) - The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wh when en an interim order has been 17 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 violated, the defaulting party must, in the normal course, be directed to purge the contempt.
17. Upon issuance of notice, learned counsel for the respondents, in their counter reply, has stated that the National Technical Rese Research arch Organization (NTRO) is a Technical Intelligence Organization under the National Security Adviser in the Prime Minister's Office.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the applicants were engaged for a specific period on a shor short-term term contractual basis against various posts in NTRO, depending upon the exigencies of work as well as functional and operational requirements, in different phases. The contractual engagements were extended periodically, based on the organization's requirements.
rements. The applicants were fully aware that their engagement was purely on a contractual basis, and the process of regular recruitment had not been adopted in such cases.
18Item 26 OA No.1469/2015
19. It has been further contended by the respondents that the applicants executed agreements at the time of their initial engagement, wherein it was categorically stated that "the party of the first part (contractual employee) shall not have any claim towards extension of the contractual work or its regularization." The respondents argu arguee that contractual engagements do not confer any right to claim regular appointment. The extensions granted were solely dependent on operational needs.
20. The respondents have also stated that Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) for contractual employees mployees were introduced two years ago, following the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DoP&AR) vide OM No. 21011/1/84-Estt.'A' Estt.'A' dated 26.04.1984. These guidelines mandate that Confidential Reports (CRs) serve as an annual assessment of work and conduct, even for contractual employees, to enable the authorities to monitor performance and determine whether to terminate 19 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 or renew the contract. Accordingly, a separate APAR format for contractual employees was introduced iin NTRO from the reporting year 2014 for the limited purpose of assessing their suitability for further extension of their contract. With a view to assessing the feasibility of absorption and making suitable recommendations, two committees--a a Higher Committe Committee and a Sub--Committee--
were constituted to examine relevant issues concerning the absorption of contractual employees. The Sub Sub-
Committee was formally constituted vide order dated 06.02.2015, comprising the Controller of Administration (CoA), a Director Director-levell officer, and a Director from DoP&T. The Sub-Committee Committee held a meeting on 16.04.2015, and its recommendations were to be placed before the Higher Committee for further consideration. Thereafter, the final recommendations would be submitted to the Competent Authority for approval before any process for absorption could commence, subject to eligibility criteria, exemptions concerning age, educational qualifications, and availability of vacancies.
20Item 26 OA No.1469/2015
21. The respondents have further submitted that a preliminary screening revealed that a significant number of contractual employees do not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria, particularly in terms of educational qualifications, age, and experience. Upon scrutiny of the applicants' records, it was found that 53 out of 82 applicants in the present case do not fulfill the eligibility criteria for the posts against which they were engaged on contract. Furthermore, with the approval of the Competent Authority, the Recruitment Rules (RRs) are presently under comprehen comprehensive sive review, and eligibility for absorption would be determined based on the prescribed criteria and relevant RRs applicable to NTRO.
22. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors.,, (2006) 4 SCC 1, to contend that the applicants have no legal right to seek regularization. Additionally, they have cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 2574/2014 & CMs 5134/10, 8525/11, and 7028/21 7028/21, dated 21 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 05.04.2013, wherein it was held that in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Uma Devi (supra), contractual employees cannot claim regularization, and thus, the writ petition was dismissed.
23. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicants relies on the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo V. Union of India & Ors.,, Civil Appeal of 2024 (Arising out of SLP No. 5580/2024), decided on 20.12.2024; Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,, Civil Appeal Nos. 5153 5153-5154/2024, 5154/2024, decided on o 30.01.2024; and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad,, Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, decided on 31.01.2025. He submits that the relief sought in the present case, concerning regularization, is squarely covered by the said judgments.
24. Heard the lear learned ned counsel for the parties and perused the record record.. The admitted facts are that the applicants have been serving in the erstwhile CMS and then NTRO for several years. They were recruited through 22 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 open selection, have faced scrutiny, and even got their APAR's s recorded. The applicants have been subjected to all controls as regular employees. The applicants were also granted interim protection against disengagement, however, the respondents have not continued their contracts, resulting in their ultimate removal/disengagement.
/disengagement. The very fact that the applicants were continued for several years indicates the availability of work. Other similarly situated contractual are still continuing. It seems that the applicants have been disengaged for approaching the tribunal seeking regularization. Upon careful consideration, we find that a catena of judgments supports the applicants' case. Recently, this Tribunal has taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 1093/2025, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Th Through rough Department of Training and Technical Education & Ors. v. Ruchi, decided on 29.01.2025, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has followed the decision in Jaggo (supra). Since the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are in favor of the 23 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015 applicants, we deem it appropriate to dispose this OA, following the same.
25. Considering their long tenure of service, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra), and Shripal (supra), and particularly in lig light of the Jaggo & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors Ors.,, Civil Appeal of 2024 (Arising out of SLP No. 5580/2024), decided on 20.12.2024, this Tribunal finds that the claims of the applicants merits reconsideration. The respondents have themselves initiated an internal ternal process to assess the feasibility of absorption through the formation of committees. Given that this process is already underway, and considering that a significant number of contractual employees have served NTRO for an extended duration, the matte matter requires a fresh assessment in accordance with the principles laid down in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra), and Shripal (supra), and the relevant Supreme Court rulings. 24 Item 26 OA No.1469/2015
25. Accordingly, the impugned action of the respondents in denying consideration for regularization is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the department to reconsider the applicants' cases in light of the Jaggo (supra) and other relevant precedents. The respondents are directed to undertake a fair and objective evaluation of the applicants' eligibility for regularization, keeping in view their long long-
standing service, experience, and the recommendations of the internal committees. A reasoned decision shall be taken and communicated to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the present Original Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
( Dr.SumeetJe
Dr.SumeetJerath
rath ) ( Harvinder Kaur Oberoi )
Member (A) Member (J)
/Arti/