AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Act, 1985 the applicant has prayed for the following relief:-
“(i)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned orders dated 23.5.2025 and order dated 7.8.2024 declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
(ii)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 19.4.2017 and 22.8.2017 only to the limited extent regarding not mentioning the effective date of Regularization in favour of the Applicants i.e. 28.01.1997, 25.04.1997 and 31.07.1996 respectively declaring to the effect that the same are arbitrary, un-constitutional, punitive, unjust and against the Principles of Service Jurisprudence.
(iii)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondents to treat the date of regularization of the Applicants to the post of Medical Officer Group-"A" with effect from the date of their Ad-hoc appointment as Medical Officer Group-"A" i.e. from 28.01.1997, 25.04.1997 and 31.07.1996 respectively with all consequential benefits and any date of regularization if treated, otherwise be declared null, void and ab-initio wrong in view of the various Judicial Pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunals.
(iv)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to declare para-(vii) of the Regularization Order as contained in Annexure-A/8 Series as null, void and ab-initio wrong and the same be quashed and set aside treating/declaring the Applicants under Old Pension Scheme instead of treating under New Pension Scheme in view the Department of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum dated 28.07 2016 as contained in Annexure-A/9 as well as judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunals including Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in Original Application No.523 of 2005 with connecting Original Applications and Hon'ble High Court, Patna in C. W.JC. No 17204 of 2015.
(v)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondents to continue the G.P.F deduction of the Applicants treating them under Old Pension Scheme without any delay.
(vi)Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.”
The present Original Application constitutes the second round of litigation between the parties. In the earlier round, the Patna Bench of this Tribunal, in O.A. No. 050/00183/2018, vide order dated 09.05.2024, issued the following directions:
“10.In view of above submissions, this Tribunal deems it fit and proper that principle of natural justice will be met. The applicants hereby directed to submit updated representations to competent authority within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order passed today and if updated representation is filed, or any pending representations, the competent authority is hereby directed to take decision taking into consideration order dated 20.08.2018 passed in OA No.285/2016 by Division Bench of coordinate Bench of CAT Hyderabad Bench in case of Dr. N. Swana Latha vs. Union of India by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is also directed that applicants shall also be provided personal hearing before taking decision on merits. Needless to say that competent authority / respondents shall also take into consideration statutory pension rules for arriving on just and proper decision relating to grant of pension under old pension scheme. Taking into consideration that in similar cases coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has already allowed similar nature of claim of similarly placed Medical Officers.
11.It is also directed that if competent authority/respondents arrive at conclusion that claim of applicants is similar to order of various Benches of this Tribunal under similar cases then competent authority arrives at conclusion for grant of pension, the same shall be extended with all consequential benefits.
12.The respondents/competent authority is directed to consider and decide representations of all the applicants by reasoned and speaking order within period of 90 days from date of receipt of order passed today. With above observations indicated herein above OA is disposed of. Needless to say that this Tribunal has not expressed any view on merits of the case.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondents considered the representations submitted by the applicants and issued an Office Order dated 07.08.2024, rejecting their claims. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“5.NOW THEREFORE, having regard to the representation of Dr Sunil Kumar, Dr. Sandeep Kumar, Dr. Sanjay Kumar and Dr. Satyendra Kumar and circumstances of the case and the extant rules and guidelines of DoPT restricting regularization of ad-hoc appointment and the fact that specific provisions were made in their offer of appointment on ad-hoc basis that they will have no claim for regularisation of their ad-hoc service, and the fact that implementation of Order dated 20.08.2018 in OA 285/2016 is in personam and not to be quoted as precedent in any matter, the request for regularization of their service from initial date of appointment on ad-hoc basis i.e. 28.01.1997, 16.11.1996, 25.04.1997 and 31.07.1996 respectively could not be acceded to.
And, in so far as their claim of coverage under Old Pension Scheme is concerned, the same is dependent upon the date of appointment in service and as far as the above 4 doctors are concerned, their appointment as Medical Officer in the GDMOsub-cadre of CHS is regularised w.e.f. 18.09.2014. Therefore, they are not eligible for coverage under Old Pension Scheme in terms of DoPPW OM No. 57/05/2021-P&PW (B) dated 03.03.2023.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.”
The principal ground on which the respondents rejected the applicants' claim for regularization from their respective initial dates of ad hoc appointment is that the terms of their appointment expressly stipulated that they would have no claim to regularization of their ad hoc service. The respondents further contended that the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 285/2016, in the case of Dr. N. Swarna Latha v. Union of India, was implemented in personam and was not to be treated as a precedent in any other matter. On these grounds, the respondents declined to regularize the applicants' services with effect from their respective initial dates of ad hoc appointment.
Learned counsel for the applicants drew our attention to the judgment dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 285/2016, titled Dr. N. Swarna Latha v. Union of India and Others. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
“16.The O.A. thus, fully succeeds. The impugned order vide OM No. A.12026/05/2008-CHS-1, dt 4.2.2016 ( which failed to clear the test of reasoning) regularizing the appointment of the applicant from 18-09-2014 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to issue a fresh order of regularization of the service of the applicant from the date of her appointment ie. 20.8.96. in the erstwhile pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 corresponding to the revised pay scale 15,600-39,600 (GP-5400), in GDMO Sub Cadre of CHS. This drill shall be performed within three months from the date of this order and all consequential benefits that arise out of such action, including fixation of seniority from the date of regularization, shall follow, by setting in motion appropriate measures required to comply with the order.”
Learned counsel further placed reliance on the decision dated 21.03.2025 rendered by the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/00536/2024, titled Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharyya v. Union of India and Anr., in support of the applicants' claim for regularization from their respective initial dates of appointment.
Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submitted that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) had referred the matter concerning Dr. N. Swarna Latha (supra) to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for its opinion and concurrence regarding implementation of the order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal. Since all available judicial remedies had been exhausted, the MoHFW, in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs (DoLA) and the DoPT, decided to implement the order dated 20.08.2018 only in personam and not to treat it as a precedent in other cases. According to the respondents, extending the benefit of the said order to the present applicants would amount to an impermissible expansion of an isolated exception, potentially resulting in administrative anomalies and affecting the principles governing equality in public employment.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the matter had been referred to the DoLA for its opinion regarding the implementation of the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal. Upon examination of the relevant file, the Department of Legal Affairs observed that the grounds proposed for filing a review petition did not disclose any new evidence concerning the facts of the case or any error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the learned Additional Solicitor General, DoLA, opined that the matter was not a fit case for filing a review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was further submitted that Dr. N. Swarna Latha was ultimately appointed as a regular Medical Officer with effect from 20.08.1996 vide Office Memorandum No. C.18011/4/2016-CHS.I dated 03.04.2024 (Annexure-R-4), pursuant to the order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal. The respondents stated that the said officer had subsequently been promoted to the next grades. Nevertheless, they maintained that the order dated 20.08.2018 had been implemented strictly in personam and could not be relied upon as a precedent for extending similar benefits to the present applicants.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and materials available on record. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the applicants, who were appointed as Medical Officers on an ad hoc basis and whose services were subsequently regularized are entitled to regularization from their respective initial dates of appointment, together with all consequential benefits, in the light of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the decisions cited at the Bar, particularly the judgment dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 285/2016, we find that the applicants have relied upon a judicial determination concerning the regularization of a Medical Officer from the date of her initial appointment. The respondents, on the other hand, have primarily sought to distinguish the said decision on the ground that it was implemented in personam. However, the mere assertion that a judicial order was implemented in personam does not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of examining whether the principles laid down therein are applicable to similarly situated persons. The applicability of such a decision must be determined with reference to the relevant facts, the governing service rules and the legal principles enunciated therein.
In the present case, having regard to the material placed before us and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the applicants, we are of the considered view that the applicants' claims for regularization from their respective initial dates of appointment warrant acceptance. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the applicants with effect from their respective initial dates of appointment, namely, 28.01.1997, 25.04.1997 and 31.07.1996, as applicable to each applicant, and to extend all consequential benefits admissible to them in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The Original Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.