AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
“a)Direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider and regularize the services of the Applicant against the post of Private Secretary in AIIMS Rishikesh, in view of his uninterrupted service since 13.06.2014 against a sanctioned and perennial post, under the direct supervision, control and administration of the Respondents, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC I, Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. (Union of India & Ors., (2024) 9 SCC 327, Jaggo v. (Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026 INSC 99;
b)Direct the Respondents to grant the Applicant the minimum of the time scale of pay attached to the post of Private Secretary together with all consequential monetary and service benefits, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) I SCC 148;
c)Declare that the continuous engagement of the Applicant through successive outsourcing agencies against a sanctioned and perennial post while denying him regularization and service benefits is arbitrary, unfair, violative of Articles 14, 76 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to extend all consequential benefits to the Applicant;
d)Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
It reveals from the pleadings that the applicant was engaged as a contractual employee at AIIMS, Rishikesh, through an outsourcing agency. Respondent No. 1 is stated to be making payment of his wages to the said outsourcing agency through which the applicant has been engaged. From the pleadings, it further emerges that the applicant was initially engaged in the year 2014 and is seeking regularization of his services. It also appears that the respondents have already finalized the selection process for appointment of regular employees in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The applicant was served with a notice dated 28.08.2026 by the contractor, whereby he was given one month's notice informing him of the discontinuation of his services thereafter. Prior thereto, the applicant had submitted a representation dated 27.12.2025 (Annexure-A/10) to respondent No. 1 seeking regularization of his services. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said representation was submitted after the respondents had initiated the process for filling up the concerned post on a regular basis.Central Administrative Tribunal
Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. D. S. Shukla, learned counsel, who appears for the respondents on advance service, accepts notice. He confirms of having received an advance copy of the present application.
Learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, submits that the applicant will be satisfied if the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent to dispose of the aforesaid representation dated 27.12.2025 (Annexure-A/10) of the applicant by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation dated 27.12.2025 (Annexure-A/10) and to dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 06 (six) weeks from receipt of certified copy of this Order.
In view of the aforesaid, the present O.A. stands disposed of at admission stage.
Associated M.A., if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that even today i.e. 22.09.2026 the applicant has attended the office, if that is so, the respondents are directed not to dis-engage the services of the applicant till his representation dated 27.12.2025 (Annexure-A/10) is disposed of.