Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Kanhaiya Lal Sharma vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 13 May, 2022
1
OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 573/2016,
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 577/2016,
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 578/2016,
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 579/2016
&
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 57/2017
Order reserved on 27.04.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 13.05.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
OA No. 573/2016
Dr. Mrs. Saroj Jain wife of Dr. Mahesh Jain, aged
about 58 years, resident of 13, Sri Gopal Nagar, Near
Mahesh Nagar Thana, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur -
presently working as Research Officer, in H.R.R.C.,
ICMR, Zenana Hospital, Jaipur- Group-B.
....Applicant
Shri V.B. Shrivastava, counsel for applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to
Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1.
2. The Indian Council of Medical Research, rep. by
its Director General, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-
110029.
3. The Principal Investigator, Human Reproduction
Research Centre-ICMR, and Professor & Head,
Department of Obst. & Gyn., Zenana Hospital
Attached Hospital of S.M.S. Medical College,
Station Road, Jaipur.
.... Respondents
Shri Arun Sharma, counsel for respondents.
2
OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017
OA No. 577/2016
Mrs. Madhu Bhargava wife of Shri Pradeep Bhargava,
aged about 58 years, resident of B-50, Jamuna Nagar,
Path No. 7, Sodala, Jaipur. Presently working as
Demographer in H.R.R.C. - ICMR, Zenana Hospital,
Jaipur- Group-B.
....Applicant
Shri V.B. Shrivastava, counsel for applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to
Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1.
2. The Indian Council of Medical Research, rep. by
its Director General, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-
110029.
3. The Principal Investigator, Human Reproduction
Research Centre-ICMR, and Professor & Head,
Department of Obst. & Gyn., Zenana Hospital
Attached Hospital of S.M.S. Medical College,
Station Road, Jaipur.
.... Respondents
Shri Arun Sharma, counsel for respondents.
OA No. 578/2016
Dr. Manju Gupta wife of Dr. G.C. Gupta aged about 54
years, resident of 48, Agrasen Nagar, Mahesh Nagar,
Jaipur. Presently working as Research Officer in
H.R.R.C. - ICMR, Zenana Hospital, Jaipur- Group-B.
....Applicant
Shri V.B. Shrivastava, counsel for applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to
Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1.
3
OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017
2. The Indian Council of Medical Research, rep. by
its Director General, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-
110029.
3. The Principal Investigator, Human Reproduction
Research Centre-ICMR, and Professor & Head,
Department of Obst. & Gyn., Zenana Hospital
Attached Hospital of S.M.S. Medical College,
Station Road, Jaipur.
.... Respondents
Shri Arun Sharma, counsel for respondents.
OA No. 579/2016
Kanhaiya Lal Sharma son of Shri Gopal Lal Sharma,
aged about 46 years resident of B-330 (A) Opposite
ICS School, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. Presently working
as Social Worker (Medical) in H.R.R.C. - ICMR, Zenana
Hospital, Jaipur- Group-C.
....Applicant
Shri V.B. Shrivastava, counsel for applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to
Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1.
2. The Indian Council of Medical Research, rep. by
its Director General, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-
110029.
3. The Principal Investigator, Human Reproduction
Research Centre-ICMR, and Professor & Head,
Department of Obst. & Gyn., Zenana Hospital
Attached Hospital of S.M.S. Medical College,
Station Road, Jaipur.
.... Respondents
Shri Arun Sharma, counsel for respondents.
OA No. 57/2017
Nathu Lal Meena son of Shri Ram Karan Meena aged
about 62 years resident of Plot No. 64-B Sawai
4
OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017
Gatore, Opposite Govt. School, J.D.A. Colony,
Jagatpura Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Gr. 'C'.
Applicant retired from the post of Driver on 31-7-2014
from the office of Human Reproductive Research
Centre, Zenana Hospital, Jaipur.
....Applicant
Shri V.B. Shrivastava, counsel for applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to
Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1.
2. The Indian Council of Medical Research, rep. by
its Director General, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-
110029.
3. The Principal Investigator, Human Reproduction
Research Centre-ICMR, and Professor & Head,
Department of Obst. & Gyn., Zenana Hospital
Attached Hospital of S.M.S. Medical College,
Station Road, Jaipur.
.... Respondents
Shri Arun Sharma, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 are taken up together for disposal as common question of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid cases.
2. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of OA No. 573/2016 are taken up. OA No. 573/2016 has been 5 OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"I) That the impugned order dated 29-9-
2015 (Annexure-A/1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
II) Issue appropriate direction or order to the respondents herein to regularize the services of the applicant herein as a Research Officer (Medical) in the Indian Council of Medical Research right from the date of the applicant's appointment i.e. 3-6-1996 in the I.C.M.R.s Human Reproductive Research Centre of Gynea. & Obst.
Department Zenana Hospital, attached Hospital S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur and to provide pensionary benefits as per old pension scheme in force at the time of appointment in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble C.A.T. Madras Bench, Ahmadabad Bench and Kolkata Bench, Kolkata and even by Hon'ble High Court Madras annexed with the present O.A. whereby directions have been given to regularize the services with effect from the date of their appointment and to pass appropriate orders with all consequential benefits of the similarly and identically situated employees including pensionary benefits as per old pension scheme in force at the time of their appointment. III) issue such other or further orders or directions to the respondents as may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Brief facts of the case, (OA No. 573/2016), as stated by the applicant, are that she was selected by the selection committee after fulfilling all requisite 6 OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 qualifications as required for the post of Research Officer. She was given appointment on the post of Research Officer by the respondents vide order dated 31.05.1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 and, thus, she joined on 03.06.1996. Since then she is rendering her services as Research Officer (Medical) in Human Reproductive Research Centre of Indian Council of Medical Research at Zanana Hospital, Jaipur under the Principal Investigator and Professor & Head, Gynea. & Obst. Department and now she is in pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 at basic pay of Rs. 31570/- as on 01.07.2013 and she is continuing in service since last 19 years without any break or interruption. Her entire service is clean with no adverse remarks. The ICMR has 31 Human Reproduction Research Centre at various medical colleges in different parts of the country. Though she was appointed on temporary basis after following due process of selection and law, but her services have not been regularized so far and she is not treated as a regular employee of ICMR. She is being deprived from the benefits as admissible to a regular employee of ICMR, such as Leave Travel Concession, Time Bound Promotion, Selection Grade, Bonus, Medical Reimbursement, Travelling Allowances, Gratuity and Pension. The applicant states that 7 OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 H.R.R.C. - I.C.M.R. Project at Zanana Hospital attached Hospital S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur is permanent in nature and her services are required on regular basis. She had served a legal notice on 10.12.2014 to the respondents for regularization of her services but as there was no response on the same, she earlier filed OA No. 182/2015 before this Bench of the Tribunal seeking directions to the respondents to regularize her services retrospectively from the date of initial appointment in HRRC-ICMR Project with all benefits including retiral benefits. The said O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its order dated 30.03.2015 with a direction to the respondent-department to consider and pass appropriate order on legal notice dated 10.12.2014. In compliance thereof, applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 08th April, 2015, but the respondents has rejected the request of the applicant for regularization of her services vide impugned order dated 29.09.2015 (Annexure A/1) and, therefore, being aggrieved for the same, the applicant has filed the present Original Application. In support of her contentions, the applicant has relied upon several judgments/orders, which are as under:- 8
OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 "(a) C.A.T., Madras Bench's order dated 04th December, 2001 passed in the case of Dr. Shyamala Balasubramanian & Ors. vs. ICMR & Ors., (OA No. 1332/2000).
(b) C.A.T., Ahmedabad Bench's order dated 26th February, 2007 passed in the case of Smt. Anuradha S. Barwe vs. ICMR & Ors., (OA No. 487/2005), and other connected OAs.
(c) C.A.T., Madras Bench's order dated 04th April, 2014 passed in the case of R. Karunagaran & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors., (OA No. 348/2011).
(d) C.A.T., Calcutta Bench, Kolkata order dated 02.05.2016 passed in the case of Chuni Dutta vs. UOI & Ors., (OA No. 894/2014), and other connected OAs."
It is the case of the applicant that as she is similarly situated person and ICMR has issued orders in favour of HRRC employees working in Chennai and Vadodara regularizing their services treating them as regular employees of ICMR creating 20 supernumerary posts with retrospective effect vide order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexure A/6) and as the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the said orders/judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and several Benches of this Tribunal, thus, the applicant prays that her services are also required to be regularized from the date of her initial appointment with all consequential benefits.
9OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017
4. After issue of notices, reply-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 - ICMR stating that the applicant was working in an adhoc project, which itself has not attained permanency. The applicant was initially appointed as Research Officer on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2200/- per month by respondent no. 3 vide OM dated 31.05.1996 for a period of one year. As the project was extended over a period of time to achieve its objectives, so the employment of temporary staff was extended from year to year basis. However, ICMR at no point of time had any intention of making these projects permanent and also regularizing these temporary employees. As far as contention of the applicant regarding regularization of services of 20 petitioners of Chennai is concerned, it is stated that they were given only supernumerary position in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court, Madras Bench. At present, there is no scheme to regularize the temporary staff in ICMR project as creation of permanent posts in temporary project is neither feasible nor desirable. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for regularization even though she has worked for years together. In support of their contentions, the 10 OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 respondents have relied upon the following judgments/orders:-
"(a) Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Ors., reported in (2006) SCC (L&S) 753.
(b) ICMR vs. K. Rajyalakshimi, reported in (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 627.
(c) Dr. Kulbhushan Sehgal vs. UOI & Ors.
(OA No. 659/2014) decided by CAT, Principal Bench vide order dated 06.02.2015."
5. Applicant has not filed any rejoinder denying the contentions of the respondents.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the judgments relied by the parties.
7. The applicants as well as the respondents have reiterated their submissions as stated earlier.
8. When the matter came up for hearing on 27.04.2022, Shri Arun Sharma, learned counsel for respondents, produced a letter bearing No. 514/Legal Cell/2020 dated 06.04.2021 addressed to him by Assistant Director General (Admn.), ICMR, New Delhi, which is in respect of the present issue. The contents 11 OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 of the letter state that the names of the applicants in OA No. 573/2016 (Dr. Saroj Jain), OA No. 578/2016 (Dr. Manju Gupta) and OA No. 579/2016 (Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sharma) are under consideration, for regularization of their HRRC project services. The names of Mrs. Madhu Bhargava (OA No. 577/2016) and Shri Nathu Lal Meena (OA No. 57/2017) have not been recommended by the concerned Officer-in- Charge of their HRRC Centre at Zanana Hospital, Jaipur.
9. While going through the contents of the said letter dated 06.04.2021 and in the light of judgments/orders passed by several coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the present issue is no more res-integra. As per the judgments/orders passed by this Tribunal, as relied upon by the applicants, in the cases of similarly situated employees who were also appointed on temporary basis and are continuing for years together, directions were given by this Tribunal to grant them benefits of regularization. They were not considered for regularization merely because they were not parties to the OAs filed by similarly situated persons. The Tribunal / Courts have observed that the case of 12 OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 similarly situated employees should not be discriminated in the matter of regularization.
10. We are in agreement with the judgments/orders of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad, relied upon by the applicants, wherein after taking into consideration the views of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed all the petitions filed by respondents-ICMR and similar benefits were granted to the employees serving in HRRC Project at Gujarat. The Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal has also regularized the services of employees of HRRC Project in UP in pursuance of the order passed by Madras Bench of this Tribunal which was affirmed by Madras High Court as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court. On the other hand, we are not in agreement with the judgments/orders relied upon by the respondents as the facts of the said cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
11. Thus, as the cases of the present applicants are almost identical to the applicants before C.A.T., Madras Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1332 of 2000 (Dr. Shyamala Balasubramanian & Ors.) (supra), 13 OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 wherein this Tribunal has given direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the applicants for regularization and as the said order has been confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that similar benefits have to be extended to the present applicants also.
12. Further, the case of the present applicants are also similar to the applicants in the case of R. Karunagaran & Ors., (OA No. 348/2011) (supra), wherein it has been observed that the applicants therein are working for the last 30 years and the respondents have not considered their request for regularization for all these years so as to get the benefits as that of the regular-employees and the Tribunal held that the applicants therein are similarly placed employees like that of the applicants in OA No. 1332 of 2000 wherein the Tribunal gave a direction to consider the applicants in that case for regularization and which order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and, therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that similar benefits has to be extended to the applicants therein also.
14OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017
13. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that similar benefits have to be extended to the present applicants also as the applicants herein are similarly placed persons like that of the applicants in OA No. OA No. 1332 of 2000 and OA No. 348/2011 (supra).
14. In view of the above observations and since the applicant has been working for more than 19 years and as respondents are considering her case, the applicant is entitled to be considered for regularization. Thus, the impugned order dated 29.09.2015, (Annexure A/1), is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularizing her services from the date of her initial appointment and pass appropriate orders in this regard. The applicant shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, Original Application No. 573/2016 is allowed. No order as to costs.
15. Accordingly, in view of the order passed in OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 578/2016 and OA No. 579/2016 15 OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016, OA No. 578/2016, OA No. 579/2016 and OA No. 57/2017 are also allowed on the same terms, observations and directions.
16. Though respondents in their aforesaid letter dated 06.04.2021 have stated that names of Mrs. Madhu Bhargava, (OA No. 577/2016), and Shri Nathu Lal Meena, (OA No. 57/2017), have not been recommended by the concerned Officer-in-Charge of their HRRC Centre at Zanana Hospital, Jaipur but since these applicants are also similarly placed as the applicants in OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 578/2016 and OA No. 579/2016, they too deserve to be considered for regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits.
17. Accordingly, in view of the order passed in OA No. 573/2016, OA No. 577/2016 as well as OA No. 57/2017 are also allowed on the same terms, observations and directions.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/