LIST OF DATES

DATES PARTICULARS
2011 In 2011, the respondent no. 2 and 3 invited
applications for various posts in Social Welfare
Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi including
post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM/”name
changed ”). The applicants applied for the post
as they had the necessary educational
qualification and they were called in walk-in
interview and were selected and given
appointment letter.
19.07.2012 Office Order bearing number F.N 9/85 CON
TNP /2011-2012 /142 -148 was issued by the
respondents on date 19.07.2012 with a
specific instruction to convert the temporary
contractual posts into permanent posts.
2012 The applicants filed O.A. No. 4043/2012 titled
as “Mukesh & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors.”
claiming for regularisation and other benefits
before the hon’ble tribunal.
04.08.2014 O.A. No. 4043/2012 titled as “Mukesh & Ors.
Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors.” was decided by the
common order dated 04.08.2014 where the
respondents were directed to examine the
claim of the applicants.
26.11.2014 The respondents vide order no.
F.1(16)/MCU/Avantika/2-13-14/833-853 dated
 26.11.2014 examined the claim of the
applicants and refuse to grant the prayer of
the applicants.
2016 The other employees of the respondent no. 1
challenged the order of refusal dated
26.11.2014 vide O.A. No. 2701/2016 titled as
“Radha & Others Vs. Govt. of NCTD” which is
pending adjudication before the hon’ble
Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi.
08.09.2021 The other contractual employees of the
respondent no. 1 filed O.A. No. 1937 of 2021
titled as “Suman Rathi & Ors. Vs. Govt. Of
NCTD” wherein they contended that the
respondent is under process to outsource the
applicants to a private agency which was
accepted the by the respondent no. 1 and the
hon’ble tribunal has passed the order of status
quo against the respondent vide order dated
08.09.2021.
13.10.2021 The applicants being apprehensive of the
action of the respondents in which they are
under process of sending the posts of the
applicants to the private outsourcing agency,
the applicants have preferred the
representation dated 13.10.2021 to the
respondents however, there is imminent
chances of respondents sending the applicant
 posts to the outsourcing agency if the same is
not stayed by this hon’ble tribunal.
___.10.2021 As admitted by the respondent no. 1 in O.A.
no. 1937 of 2021, the respondent no. 1 is
underway to outsource all contractual
employees to a private agency including the
applicants herein. Hence, the applicants prefer
the present O.A.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL;

PRINICIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
 O.A. NO. OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Mukesh W/o Sh. Rajender Singh

R/o VPO Bali Kuturpur,
Teh. Ganour, Distt. Sonepat, HR.

2. Rakesh Kumari W/o Amarjeet Malik

R/o H. No. 236, Tikri Border, Delhi-41

3. Kamlesh Devi W/o Sh. Kishan Chand

R/o A-128 Kamrudin Nagar,
Nangloi, Delhi-41

4. Sarita Yadav D/o Sh. Sube Singh

R/o VPO Lawan, Teh. Mohandergarh,
Haryana

5. Anju Devi D/o Sh. Ranbir Singh

R/o H. No. 174/31 Shastri
Colony, Gali No. 2 Reliance Tower,
Gohana Road, Sonepat.

6. Neelam Devi W/o Sh. Sukhender

R/o VPO. Matindu Distt. Sonepat
Teh. Kharkhoda state, Haryana

7. Nisha W/o Vinod Kumar

R/o VPO. Paraman, Teh. Kharkhoda,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana

8. Parveen Rani W/o Sandeep Dhaiya

R/o H. No. 635, VPO. Papli, Teh.
Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana

9. Ranjeeta W/o Sandeep

R/o H. No. 575 Village
Jaunti, Delhi-81
10. Kavita W/o Sh. Parveen Kumar
R/o H. No. 689/30, Gali No. 1
Vikas Nagar, Kakroi Road
Sonepat

11. Poonam W/o Sh. Abhimanyu

R/o H. No. 601, Ward No. 34,
Vijay Nagar Jhajjar Chungi,
Rohtak

12. Preeti W/o Sh. Pardeep

R/o H. No. 476, 77 Sec-7
Housing Board, Bhadurgargh

13. Kavita D/o Sh. Dayakishan

R/o H. No. 192/3 Gali No. 3, Line
Par, Shankar Garden
Bahadurhargh

14. Sonia D/o Ramchander

R/o H. No. 592/11 Gali No. 3
Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgargh

15. Sunita W/o Azad Singh

R/o H. No. 195/226, VPO.
Bankher Narela Delhi-40

16. Babita W/o sh. Pawan Kumar

R/o VPO. Ladrawan Distt.
Jhajjar

17. Maneesha W/o Naveen

R/o VPO. Barona Distt.
Sonepat Kharkhoda Haryana

18. Sapna Rani W/o Rajesh Tanya

R/o H. No. 3196 Mahindra Park,
Rani Bagh Delhi-34
19. Monika D/o Sh. Jagbir Singh
R/o VPO. Thana Kalan
Distt. Sonepat

20. Darshna Devi W/o Bijender Sharma

R/o VPO Kiwana Distt. Panipat
Teh. Samalkha Haryana

21. Kusum Lata D/o Ajeet Singh

R/o VPO. Lahrara Teh. Sonepat
Haryana

22. Rakhi W/o Sh. Jitender Kumar

R/o H. No. 265 Village Naharpur
Sec 7, Rohini Delhi-85

23. Nisha Dogra W/o Jeewan Singh Dogra

R/o B9/186 FF, Sec 4 Rohini
Delhi-85

24. Meenu Rani W/o Sh. Bijender Rana

R/o H. No. 73, Village Mungeshpur
Delhi-39

25. Kiran Devi D/o Hari Chand

R/o Village Kohla Teh. Gohana Distt.
Sonepat, Haryana

26. Babita Chaudhary W/o Vijay Kumar

R/o VPO, Shurdhi, P.O. Dhakala
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana

…APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Through its Chief Secretary,
 Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Near Sectt.,
Near ITO, New Delhi.

2. The Director,
Directorate of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, GLNS Complex,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi - 02.

3. The Administrator,
“ASHA KIRAN” Home for Mentally Retarded,
Department of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Avantika Complex, Rohini,
Sector 1, Delhi – 85. …RESPONDENTS

DELHI

DATE: APPLICANT

THROUGH

COUNSELS

PANKAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES

OFF- 102, FF, NIPUN PLAZA, SEC-1,
VAISHALI, GZB. (U.P.)-201010
E-mail Id: aorpankajkumar@gmail.com
M. NO.: 9958683901, 8755349012
 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL;
PRINICIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

O.A. NO. OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

KANAYA LAL BHAN VS.

ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE

ADMINISTRATICE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985

To,
The Hon’ble Chairman and
his accompanying members of
This hon’ble Tribunal.
The humble Application of the
applicants above-named.

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION:

1. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER/ ACTION AGAINST

WHICH THE APPLICATION IS BEING MADE:
This application is being preferred against the action of the
respondents wherein they are under the process of
outsourcing the posts of applicants to the private outsource
agency thereby attempting to deny the right of
regularisation and other such rights which arises out of the
fact that the applicants have served the respondent no. 3 for
more than ten years.
2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
That the applicant declares that subject matter against which
the application being made is within jurisdiction of this
hon’ble Tribunal.

3. LIMITATION:
That the applicants declare that the subject matter against
which the application is being made within the period of
limitation. Moreover, the subject matter against which the
application is being made involves continuous and subsisting
cause of action from the day of contractual appointment till
today.

4. FACTS OF THE CASE:

That the facts of this case are stated as under:
4.1. That in 2011, the respondent no. 2 and 3 invited the
applications for various posts in Social Welfare
Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi including posts
of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (herein referred to as
“ANM”). The applicants applied for the posts as they
had the necessary educational qualification and they
were called for walk-in interview and were selected
and given appointment letter.
4.2. That on date 19.07.2012 vide office order bearing
number F. No. 9/85 CON TNP/2011-2012/142-148
was issued by the respondents with a specific
 instruction to convert the temporary contractual
posts into permanent posts.
4.3. That the applicants filed O.A. No. 4043/2012 titled as
“Mukesh & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors.” claiming for
regularisation and other benefits before the hon’ble
Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi.
4.4. That O.A. No. 4032/2012 was decided by the
common order dated 04.08.2014 wherein the
respondents were directed to examine the claim of
the applicants regarding pay, regularisation and
leave keeping in the view the order of hon'ble High
court in case of Sonia Gandhi & Others Vs. Govt. of
NCT Of Delhi on 6th Nov. 2013. A true copy of order
dated 04.08.2014 is annexed herein as Annexure A.
4.5. That the respondents vide order no.
F.1(16)/MCU/Avantika/2-13-14/833-853 dated
26.11.2014 examined the claim of the applicants and
refuse to grant the prayer of the applicants. A true
copy of order no. F.1(16)/MCU/Avantika/2-13-
14/833-853 dated 26.11.2014 is annexed herein as
Annexure B.
4.6. That the other employees of the respondent no. 1
challenged the order of refusal dated 26.11.2014
vide O.A. No. 2701/2016 titled as “Radha & Others
Vs. Govt. of NCTD” which is pending adjudication
before the hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal,
Delhi.
4.7. That the other contractual employees working in
respondent no. 3 filed O.A. No. 1937 of 2021 titled as
“Suman Rathi & Ors. Vs. Govt. Of NCTD” wherein
they contended that the respondent is under process
to outsource the contractual employees to a private
agency which is admitted the by the respondent no.
1 and the hon’ble tribunal has passed the order of
status quo against the respondent vide order dated
08.09.2021. A true copy of order dated 08.09.2021 is
annexed herein as Annexure C.
4.8. That the applicants are further required to render
their services in extremely harsh and inhuman
condition. The applicants are required to render
services for ten nights regularly which is against the
service rule and extremely torturing.
4.9. That despite the fact that inmates are mentally
retarded for which they are difficult to handle and
would require more staffs than a normal patient. The
nurse patient ratio is very abysmal which creates
excessive burden on applicants. It is relevant to
mention here that required nurse patient ratio is 1:3
whereas the present nurse patient ratio is 1:50 which
is exceptionally higher and puts the applicants in
unmanageable condition. Even then the applicants
have been working in Respondent No. 3 organisation
for more than 10 years.
4.10. That the above-mentioned scenario stated in the
forgoing para depicts pathetic condition of the
applicants and is extreme form of exploitation of the
employees/ applicants whereas no medical cover/
facilities is provided to the applicants.
4.11. That the applicants have been forced to render more
than forty-eight hours every week and without
overtime payment. The applicants have been
rendering services approximately fifty hours and
more monthly without any overtime compensation.
The applicants have further been forced to undertake
ten nights whereas as par rule more than four
consecutive nights are prohibited.
4.12. That it is further relevant to mention here that
despite the applicants being exposed to maximum
danger which are potentially fatal, the applicants are
not provided any nursing and risk allowances,
medical claims or any other medical cover.
4.13. That it is further to mention here that at the time of
appointment, the applicants were assured by the
official of respondents no. 3 that after completion of
first contractual period the respondent shall take
appropriate steps to regularize their services. The
applicants believing the assurance given by the
officials of respondent no. 3 have rendered
impeccable service for more than ten years and for
the same reason the applicants were retained even
 after expiry of the contractual period of twelve
months and the services of applicant has been
extended from time to time and presently they have
served more than 10 years.
4.14. That it is further relevant to mention here that the
considering the peril and the representations of the
applicants. The respondent no. 3 issued a sanction
order dated 19.07.2012 bearing F.N 9/85/CON. TNP/
2011-2012/142-148 which contains the specific
instruction to convert the temporary/ contractual
posts into permanent posts. However, the
respondent instead of taking steps to regularise the
posts are under the process of outsourcing the posts
to private outsourcing agency.
4.15. That as admitted by the respondent no. 1 in O.A. No.
1937 of 2021, the respondent no. 1 is underway to
outsource all contractual employees to private
agency including the applicants herein. The
respondents are secretly without giving any notice to
the applicants are in the process to outsource the
employments of the applicants to a private outsource
agency which the respondent has admitted before
the court. Pursuant to which the court has passed the
order of status quo dated 08.09.2021 in O.A. No.
1937 of 2021 titled as “Suman Rathi & Ors. Vs. Govt.
Of NCTD”.
 4.16. That the decision of outsourcing the applicants’ posts
is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 21,
38, 39, 41, 42 of the constitution of India and the
settled law wherein it has been held in several
decisions that the post of parrenial nature cannot be
outsourced and the same is being challenged on the
following grounds:

5. GROUNDS:
5.1. Because the applicants have rendered more than ten
years of services on contractual basis and at the
point of time when they can rightfully claim
regularisation, equal pay for equal work or other such
reliefs and in the light of fact that the hon’ble tribunal
vide order dated 04.08.2014 had directed the
respondents to consider the claim of regularisation of
the applicants which the respondents had wrongly
denied. Then, with the motive to scuttle the
legitimate demands the respondents have conspired
to give the applicants posts to a private outsourcing
agency. So that, the applicants could not claim any
such rights.
5.2. Because the respondents who have extracted the
work of perennial nature on contract basis for more
than ten years cannot outsource the posts as the
same is against the settled law.
5.3. Because in case of C/M Lala Babu Baijal Memorial
vs. Chief Secry., Govt. Of U.P. on 21 March, 2012.
The hon’ble High court of Allahabad observed:
“The normal functions of Class IV staff in a secondary
educational institution is ringing of bell, opening of
class rooms, cleaning, proving stationary etc. from
office to class teachers, taking files and other
documents like examination copies etc. from one
place to other and similar other menial job. All this
work of Class IV has to be performed by a person
present in educational institution. Therefore, what
the G.O. suggests is that for performing menial job of
Class IV, the workers shall be made available by a
third party, by whatever name it may be called, may
be a labour supplier, may be a Service Provider or
else but in effect it amounts to introduction of a
“middleman” for arranging Class IV employees to
perform the job of Class IV in educational institutions
for which the institutions shall pay the service
charges which would include wages/ salary of such
person (Class IV) and also the service charges of
third party. This is nothing but a kind of contract
labour arrangement.
Introduction of a middleman where the requirement
is perennial, continuous and permanent has been
deprecated time and again and many statutes
enacted with an objective to exclude middleman have
 been held to be in public interest. This is really
strange that herein the State Government intend to
introduce a system of middleman when it is not
already there. Learned Additional Advocate General
also could not explain that besides wages/ salary of
the person who would be available to educational
institution for performing the job of Class IV
employee, the service charges to third party would
also be paid and in these circumstances how it can
be an arrangement for saving the cost. To this query,
he could not reply at all.
In my view, therefore, though the concept of making
available the staff to perform Class-IV job by outside
agency though termed "Outsourcing" but it is nothing
but a system of supply of work force through a
contractor or a person who satisfy the term
"contractor" for all purposes though termed as
"outsourcing". Hence the system as contemplated in
Para 2 of impugned G.O. is evidently exploitative,
arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, illogical, hence
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

5.4. Because the acts of the respondents are violative of

Article 14,16 and 39(c) of Constitution of India as the
applicants are not treated equally regarding their
salary and other benefits in comparison to other
contractual staffs within the organization and in
 comparison, to other staffs outside the organization
and the regular employees of the organization. The
hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randir Singh
vs. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 879 held that
equal pay for equal work although not expressly
declared to be a fundamental right is clearly a
constitution goal under Article 14, 16, 39(c) of
Constitution of India and can be enforced by the
court in cases of unequal scales of pay based on
irrational classification. The hon'ble Supreme Court in
cases of Daily Casual Labour vs. Union of India
1988 1 SCC 122 held that the doctrine of equal pay
for equal work is equally applicable to a temporary or
casual employee performing the same duties.
5.5. Because despite the categorical and detailed joint
order dated 04.08.2014 passed in the O.A. 4043 of
2012 wherein the respondents were directed to
examine the claim of the applicants based on the
judgment of Sonia Gandhi & Others Vs. Govt. of NCT
Of Delhi on 6th Nov. 2013, the respondents did not
consider the legitimate claims of the applicants
regarding parity in the emoluments and other
amenities and regularisation.
5.6. Because the act of outsourcing are posts of the
applicants are arbitrary, unreasonable and
unsustainable in the eyes of law being violative of
 rights of the petitioners enshrined in the article 14,
16, 38, 39, 41 of the constitution of India.
5.7. Because the act of the respondents of using the
outsourcing agency for replacing the applicants with
outsourced employees is extremely arbitrary and
unreasonable being violative of fundamental rights of
the applicants and the duty cast on the State through
Directive Principle, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5.8. Because the appointment of applicants has taken
place in conformity with Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India wherein the posts were duly
advertised, and inter se merit was assessed by a
committee comprising of experts. Therefore, the
appointment of applicants is not illegal.
5.9. Because all parameters of fair recruitment were
followed in the recruitment of the applicants and
there was no infraction of any rule or statute or
constitutional provision in the appointment of
applicants.
5.10. Because the respondents are exploiting the
vulnerable position of the applicants and denying
their constitutional and legal rights by forcing them
to render service on discriminatory terms and
condition in case where the job exposes the
applicants to potential danger to their lives as the
inmates are suffering from fatal contagious diseases
which is violative of fundamental rights of the
 applicants enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
of India.
5.11. Because of the kind of services, the applicants are
required to perform requires that the applicants
service be made permanent in order to ensure proper
medication, emergency first aid and other facilities
which in turn shall ensure better services to the
inmates.
5.12. Because that ideal of every good governance is to
secure its employees financially and otherwise to get
the better services but in the present case, the
respondents are not empathizing with the plight of
the applicants.
5.13. Because the despite the above-mentioned office
order directing the officials to take steps to regularize
the applicants, some officials from the respondents’
departments are conspiring to scuttle the process of
regularization forever.
5.14. Because the State which is indeed a welfare State
cannot push its employees in perilous condition by
extracting work for almost a decade and then
terminating them. The State cannot be permitted to
exploit the economically venerable conditions of
employees/applicants. On the contrary, the State is
duty bound by the virtue of Directive Principles of
State Policy to ensure adequate means of livelihood
to its citizens and to provide economic justice to its
citizens in addition to social and political justice
reference may be had of Article 38 and 39 of
Constitution of India. Withdrawing the regularisation
of the applicants who have rendered service for more
than ten years would be a gross economic injustice
inflicted by the State which is duty bound to act as
welfare State. It is no more res-integra and settled
by the intermittent judgement of the hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that the provision of Part IV,
i.e., Directive Principles of State Policy is not a dead
letter or mere a utopian norm not be endeavoured to
be followed rather hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case Minerva Mills have raised the status of Directive
principle akin to fundamental rights and has
commanded to treat Part III and Part IV
harmoniously. In paragraph 56 of Minerva Mills
Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 1981
SCR (1) 206. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
held:
“56. The significance of the perception that
Parts III and IV together constitute the core of
commitment to social revolution and they,
together, are the conscience of the Constitution
is to be traced to a deep understanding of the
scheme of the Indian Constitution. Granville
Austin's observation brings out the true
position that Parts III and IV are like two
wheels of a chariot, one no less important than
the other. You snap one and the other will lose
its efficacy. They are like a twin formula for
achieving the social revolution, which is the
ideal which the visionary founders of the
Constitution set before themselves. In other
words, the Indian Constitution is founded on
the bedrock of the balance between Parts III
and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over
the other is to disturb the harmony of the
Constitution. This harmony and balance
between fundamental rights and directive
principles is an essential feature of the basic
structure of the Constitution.”

Clause II of Article 41 (DD BASU 14th edition

shorter constitution of India): “‘Job security’ is an
ingredient of the ‘right to work’ read in the light of
the philosophy of socio-economic justice. Hence
Court will see that the Government does not employ
casual labour and then to terminate their services
after a fairly long time, taking advantage of technical
rules. In such a case Court would issue a direction to
the Government to regularize such employees.”

page 1870 para 3 of DD Basu 14th edition

shorter Constitution of India.
 “The Supreme Court has laid down that in view of the
Directives in Part IV of the Constitution, including Art
41, the Government should instead of terminating
the services of those ad-hoc employees who are
serving for a reasonably long period and possess the
requisite qualifications for regular appointments,
should be ’regularised’ in consultation with the Public
Service Commission if necessary.”
Therefore, not regularising the applicants after
extracting more than ten years of services and giving
their posts to private outsourcing agency would be
unfair and unjust.
5.15. Because the applicant’s appointments were
appointment where due procedure was followed. So
far as the procedure is concerned, the appointment
of the applicants took place in the manner which was
proper and according to constitutional mandate. The
Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Uma Devi while
referring to Judgment in case of Union Public
Service Commission vs. Girish Jayant Lal
Vaghela observed as under:
THE APPOINTMENT TO ANY POST UNDER THE STATE
CAN ONLY BE MADE AFTER A PROPER
ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN MADE INVITING
APPLICATIONS FROM ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE AND
HOLDING OF SELECTION BY A BODY OF EXPERTS OR
A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE WHOSE
MEMBERS ARE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL THROUGH A
WRITTEN EXAMINATION OR INTERVIEW OR SOME
OTHER RATIONAL CRITERIA FOR JUDGING INTER-SE
MERIT OF CANDIDATES WHO HAVE APPLIED IN
RESPONSE TO ADVERTISEMENT MADE. A REGULAR
APPOINTMENT TO A POST UNDER THE STATE OR
UNION CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT ISSUING
ADVERTISEMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER
WHICH IN SOME CASES INCLUDE INVITING THE
APPLICATIONS FROM THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE
WHERE ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE GET THEIR NAMES
REGISTERED. ANY REGULAR APPOINTMENT MADE
ON A POST UNDER THE STATE OR UNION WITHOUT
ISSUING ADVERTISEMENT INVITING APPLICATIONS
FROM ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES AND WITHOUT
HOLDING A PROPER SELECTION WHERE ALL
ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES GET A FAIR CHANCE TO
COMPETE WOULD VIOLATE THE GUARANTEE
ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 16 OF THE
CONSTITUITION OF INDIA.

This definition is further corroborated by M.L.Kesari

judgment. Para 5 (ii) of M.L.Kesari Judgement is
extracted as below :
5) (II) The appointment of such employee should not
be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments
are not made or continued against sanctioned posts
 or where the persons appointed do not possess the
prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments
will be considered to be illegal. But where the person
employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and
was working against sanctioned posts, but had been
selected without undergoing the process of open
competitive selection, such appointments are
considered to be irregular.

5.16. Because in case of State of Gujarat and others v.

PWD Employees Union and Others (2013) 12
SCC 417. In this case, the Apex Court had expressed
considered view that when the process of recruitment
is consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, the employees are entitled to
all the benefits of service including regularisation of
service. It has further held that the decision in Uma
Devi's case has no application for daily wage
employees who are engaged in job which are
perennial in nature and whose initial appointments
are neither illegal nor irregular.
5.17. Because in case of Nihal Singh and Others vs.
State of Punjab and Others (2013) 14 SCC 65.
In the above judgement, Apex court has emphasized
that when the petitioners are appointed in
accordance with the constitutional scheme, the
judgement in Uma Devi's case does not come in the
 way of regularisation of their services. When the
appellant’s appointments are neither illegal nor
irregular and when they are appointed against the
sanctioned posts, they are entitled to have their
services regularised. The hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that the judgement in Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others
(2006) 4 SCC 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Umadevi
case’) cannot become a licence for exploitation by
the state and its instrumentalities, further it has
come down heavily on the public sector for enjoying
the cheap labour over a period of decades.
5.18. Because in case of Union Public Service
Commission versus Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela
and others reported in 2006 (2) SCALE 115. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held-
“Article 16 which finds place in Part III of the
Constitution relating to fundamental rights provides
that there shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State. The main
object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right
to equality of opportunity and employment in public
offices. The words “employment” or “appointment”
cover not merely the initial appointment but also
other attributes of service like promotion and age of
superannuation etc. The appointment to any post
 under the State can only be made after a proper
advertisement has been made inviting applications
from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a
body of experts or a specially constituted committee
whose members are fair and impartial through a
written examination or interview or some other
rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of
candidates who have applied in response to the
advertisement made. A regular appointment to a
post under the State or Union cannot be made
without issuing advertisement in the prescribed
manner which may in some cases include inviting
applications from the employment exchange where
eligible candidates get their names registered. Any
regular appointment made on a post under the State
or Union without issuing advertisement inviting
applications from eligible candidates and without
holding a proper selection where all eligible
candidates get a fair chance to compete would
violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of
the Constitution. (See B. S. Minhas Vs. Indian
Statistical Institute and Others AIR 1984 SC 363).”
5.19. Because in case of Shankar Kachchap And Ors v.
Drinking Water And Sanitation Writ Petition (C)
No. 3382 of 2016. In the above case, the hon’ble
High Court has held that temporary/ ad-hoc/ daily
wage employees if appointed in a regular manner are
entitled to get regularised and their regularisation is
not dependent on one time scheme for
regularization. They can be regularised anytime by
the State if the initial appointment is according to the
Constitutional scheme of public employment.
Framing one time scheme for regularization is for
those ad-hoc/ daily wage/ temporary employees
who were irregularly appointed. Paragraph number
10, 11 is extracted as below:
“10. In the first place, it needs to be recorded that
claim of the petitioners is for regularisation of their
services, but not in terms of the Regularisation Rules
of 2015. They are not illegally appointed daily wages
workers and by virtue of Award dated 29.06.2005
they must be treated as regularly appointed
employees under the respondent State. Onetime
scheme floated by the State of Jharkhand vide
Notification dated 13.02.2015 is not the only scheme
for regularisation. It is also not true that a daily wage
worker, though not irregularly appointed, can be
regularised only by framing onetime scheme for
regularisation. Real import of the decision in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs.
Umadevi and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 (paragraph no.
53) is that minor procedural lapse in appointment
should not end in termination of service. It is in the
nature of recognition of a right in the ad-hoc/daily
 wages/temporary employees who were irregularly
appointed.”
5.20. Because in case of Life Insurance Corporation of
India And another, Etc. v. Kailash Nath and
Others, Etc. (2008)1UPLBEC472. The hon’ble High
Court upheld that Uma Devi (supra) discouraged the
tendency of regularisation of the services obtained by
the employees following back-door process and
logically discarded unfair employment practice and
concluded that if the appointments concerned are
temporary in nature then either one has to keep the
employees for a fixed period or project where work of
temporary nature can be seen but cannot be allowed
to continue in the garb of temporary work when in
effect the work is of permanent nature. Paragraph
number 6 is extracted as below:
“6. According to us, there is a big gap between an
appointment following a back-door process and an
appointment following due process of law. It is true.
If the second method of appointment is adopted by
an employer and allowed to continue indefinitely
without regularisation then it will obviously lead to
unfair labour practice. If the persons who were
appointed although irregularly under the
nomenclature temporary but following the due
process of selection and cannot get the benefit of
regular employee even after rendering 15 years of
services, the LIC being instrumentality of the Union is
bound to consider merit of the individual cases.
Despite existence of the ratio of Uma Devi (supra), in
a case of daily wager of the concerned Forest
Department a Division Bench of this Court in 2006
(2) ADJ 232 (All) (DB) (State of U.P. and Ors. v.
Mata Deen) relying upon the Supreme Court
Judgment reported in (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595 (State
of U.P. and Ors. v. Putti Lal) held that since the daily
wager is working in the Forest Department being
placed on the similar footing as it has been held in
the case of Putti Lai (supra), the State is bound by
the order of the Supreme Court and accordingly the
appeal was dismissed by upholding the order of the
learned Single Judge for the purpose of consideration
of representation about the regularisation of service
of the petitioner. The Supreme Court dismissed the
appeal from such order in limine as reported in 2007
(7) ADJ 413 (SC) (State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mata
Deen). Therefore, each and every case has to be
guided by its own factual basis keeping on the back
of the mind the general principle laid down by the
Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra). The case of the
writ petitioners/petitioners stands on a much better
footing than the case of Mata Deen (supra). ……….
 6.1 Against this background, it is necessary to see
what is the meaning of "temporary". As per Black's
Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, temporary means, as
under:
"Temporary." That which is to last for a limited time
only, as distinguished from that which is perpetual,
or indefinite, in its duration. Opposite of permanent.

In Law Lexicon, 1997 Edition, meaning of

"temporary" is as follows:
Temporary. Lasting or intended to last only for a
time. "Temporary" means lasting for a time only;
existing or continuing for a limited time; not of long
duration; not permanent; transitory; changing;
lasting for a short time.

Therefore, temporary lasts for limited period when

permanent lasts for unlimited period. But when
temporary lasts for unlimited period, it contradicts
the province……………………”

6. DETAILS OF THE REMEDY EXHAUSTED:

That the applicant declares that they have availed all the
remedies available with them by way of making
representation and reminder but the respondent have not
responded the same so far hence this O.A.
7. MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED/ PENDING BEFORE
ANY COURT OF LAW:That the applicants further declares
that they have not filed any other O.A. before any bench of
the tribunal and no case is pending before any other Court.

8. RELIEF:
In view of the above stated facts and grounds, the applicant
prays for the following relief:
A.  That the Hon’ble tribunal may graciously be pleased to
declare the act of Respondents to give the post of
applicant to the outsourced agency as arbitrary,
unreasonable and illegal.
B. That the Hon’ble tribunal may graciously be pleased to
direct the Respondents not to outsource the post of the
applicant to any outsourcing agency or to change the
contractual status of employment in any other status.
Or
C. That the Hon'ble tribunal may graciously be pleased to
pass any order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the interest
of justice.

9. INTERIM ORDERS, IF ANY PRAYED FOR: The hon’ble

tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass the order of
status quo as to the nature of employment of applicant and
direct the respondents not to outsource the posts of the
applicants till the final adjudication of the present OA.
10. Para no. 10 is not applicable as the application is being
made through a legal practitioner.

11. PARTICULARS OF THE POSTAL ORDER:

i. No. IPO:
ii. Date of Issuing:
iii. IPO from Issuing:
iv. IPO at which:

12. LIST OF ENCLOSURE: As per Index.

DELHI

DATE: APPLICANT

THROUGH

COUNSELS

PANKAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES

OFF- 102, FF, NIPUN PLAZA, SEC-1,
VAISHALI, GZB. (U.P.)-201010
E-mail Id: aorpankajkumar@gmail.com
M. NO.: 9958683901, 8755349012
 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL;
PRINICIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

O.A. NO. OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Mukesh W/o Sh. Rajender Singh

R/o VPO Bali Kuturpur,
Teh. Ganour, Distt. Sonepat, HR.

2. Rakesh Kumari W/o Amarjeet Malik

R/o H. No. 236, Tikri Border, Delhi-41

3. Kamlesh Devi W/o Sh. Kishan Chand

R/o A-128 Kamrudin Nagar,
Nangloi, Delhi-41

4. Sarita Yadav D/o Sh. Sube Singh

R/o VPO Lawan, Teh. Mohandergarh,
Haryana

5. Anju Devi D/o Sh. Ranbir Singh

R/o H. No. 174/31 Shastri
Colony, Gali No. 2 Reliance Tower,
Gohana Road, Sonepat.

6. Neelam Devi W/o Sh. Sukhender

R/o VPO. Matindu Distt. Sonepat
Teh. Kharkhoda state, Haryana

7. Nisha W/o Vinod Kumar

R/o VPO. Paraman, Teh. Kharkhoda,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana

8. Parveen Rani W/o Sandeep Dhaiya

R/o H. No. 635, VPO. Papli, Teh.
Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana

9. Ranjeeta W/o Sandeep

 R/o H. No. 575 Village
Jaunti, Delhi-81

10. Kavita W/o Sh. Parveen Kumar

R/o H. No. 689/30, Gali No. 1
Vikas Nagar, Kakroi Road
Sonepat

11. Poonam W/o Sh. Abhimanyu

R/o H. No. 601, Ward No. 34,
Vijay Nagar Jhajjar Chungi,
Rohtak

12. Preeti W/o Sh. Pardeep

R/o H. No. 476, 77 Sec-7
Housing Board, Bhadurgargh

13. Kavita D/o Sh. Dayakishan

R/o H. No. 192/3 Gali No. 3, Line
Par, Shankar Garden
Bahadurhargh

14. Sonia D/o Ramchander

R/o H. No. 592/11 Gali No. 3
Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgargh

15. Sunita W/o Azad Singh

R/o H. No. 195/226, VPO.
Bankher Narela Delhi-40

16. Babita W/o sh. Pawan Kumar

R/o VPO. Ladrawan Distt.
Jhajjar

17. Maneesha W/o Naveen

R/o VPO. Barona Distt.
Sonepat Kharkhoda Haryana

18. Sapna Rani W/o Rajesh Tanya

 R/o H. No. 3196 Mahindra Park,
Rani Bagh Delhi-34

19. Monika D/o Sh. Jagbir Singh

R/o VPO. Thana Kalan
Distt. Sonepat

20. Darshna Devi W/o Bijender Sharma

R/o VPO Kiwana Distt. Panipat
Teh. Samalkha Haryana

21. Kusum Lata D/o Ajeet Singh

R/o VPO. Lahrara Teh. Sonepat
Haryana

22. Rakhi W/o Sh. Jitender Kumar

R/o H. No. 265 Village Naharpur
Sec 7, Rohini Delhi-85

23. Nisha Dogra W/o Jeewan Singh Dogra

R/o B9/186 FF, Sec 4 Rohini
Delhi-85

24. Meenu Rani W/o Sh. Bijender Rana

R/o H. No. 73, Village Mungeshpur
Delhi-39

25. Kiran Devi D/o Hari Chand

R/o Village Kohla Teh. Gohana Distt.
Sonepat, Haryana

26. Babita Chaudhary W/o Vijay Kumar

R/o VPO, Shurdhi, P.O. Dhakala
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana

…APPLICANTS

VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Near Sectt.,
Near ITO, New Delhi.

2. The Director,
Directorate of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, GLNS Complex,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi - 02.

3. The Administrator,
“ASHA KIRAN” Home for Mentally Retarded,
Department of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Avantika Complex, Rohini,

Sector 1, Delhi – 85. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mukesh, Aged about -- yrs., W/o Sh. Rajender Singh,

R/o VPO Bali Kuturpur, Teh. Ganour, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana,
do hereby verify that the contents do hereby verify that the
contents of the para no. to are true to my personal knowledge
and para no. ___ to ___ believed to be true on legal advice
and that I have not suppressed any material fact.
NEW DELHI

DATE:

(MUKESH)
 IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

M.A. NO. OF 2021

IN

O.A. No. OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Mukesh W/o Sh. Rajender Singh

R/o VPO Bali Kuturpur,
Teh. Ganour, Distt. Sonepat, HR.

2. Rakesh Kumari W/o Amarjeet Malik

R/o H. No. 236, Tikri Border, Delhi-41

3. Kamlesh Devi W/o Sh. Kishan Chand

R/o A-128 Kamrudin Nagar,
Nangloi, Delhi-41

4. Sarita Yadav D/o Sh. Sube Singh

R/o VPO Lawan, Teh. Mohandergarh,
Haryana

5. Anju Devi D/o Sh. Ranbir Singh

R/o H. No. 174/31 Shastri
Colony, Gali No. 2 Reliance Tower,
Gohana Road, Sonepat.

6. Neelam Devi W/o Sh. Sukhender

R/o VPO. Matindu Distt. Sonepat
Teh. Kharkhoda state, Haryana

7. Nisha W/o Vinod Kumar

R/o VPO. Paraman, Teh. Kharkhoda,
 Distt. Sonepat, Haryana

8. Parveen Rani W/o Sandeep Dhaiya

R/o H. No. 635, VPO. Papli, Teh.
Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana

9. Ranjeeta W/o Sandeep

R/o H. No. 575 Village
Jaunti, Delhi-81

10. Kavita W/o Sh. Parveen Kumar

R/o H. No. 689/30, Gali No. 1
Vikas Nagar, Kakroi Road
Sonepat

11. Poonam W/o Sh. Abhimanyu

R/o H. No. 601, Ward No. 34,
Vijay Nagar Jhajjar Chungi,
Rohtak

12. Preeti W/o Sh. Pardeep

R/o H. No. 476, 77 Sec-7
Housing Board, Bhadurgargh

13. Kavita D/o Sh. Dayakishan

R/o H. No. 192/3 Gali No. 3, Line
Par, Shankar Garden
Bahadurhargh

14. Sonia D/o Ramchander

R/o H. No. 592/11 Gali No. 3
Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgargh

15. Sunita W/o Azad Singh

R/o H. No. 195/226, VPO.
Bankher Narela Delhi-40

16. Babita W/o sh. Pawan Kumar

R/o VPO. Ladrawan Distt.
 Jhajjar

17. Maneesha W/o Naveen

R/o VPO. Barona Distt.
Sonepat Kharkhoda Haryana

18. Sapna Rani W/o Rajesh Tanya

R/o H. No. 3196 Mahindra Park,
Rani Bagh Delhi-34

19. Monika D/o Sh. Jagbir Singh

R/o VPO. Thana Kalan
Distt. Sonepat

20. Darshna Devi W/o Bijender Sharma

R/o VPO Kiwana Distt. Panipat
Teh. Samalkha Haryana

21. Kusum Lata D/o Ajeet Singh

R/o VPO. Lahrara Teh. Sonepat
Haryana

22. Rakhi W/o Sh. Jitender Kumar

R/o H. No. 265 Village Naharpur
Sec 7, Rohini Delhi-85

23. Nisha Dogra W/o Jeewan Singh Dogra

R/o B9/186 FF, Sec 4 Rohini
Delhi-85

24. Meenu Rani W/o Sh. Bijender Rana

R/o H. No. 73, Village Mungeshpur
Delhi-39

25. Kiran Devi D/o Hari Chand

R/o Village Kohla Teh. Gohana Distt.
Sonepat, Haryana

26. Babita Chaudhary W/o Vijay Kumar

R/o VPO, Shurdhi, P.O. Dhakala
 Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana

…APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Through its Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Near Sectt.,
Near ITO, New Delhi.

2. The Director,
Directorate of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, GLNS Complex,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi - 02.

3. The Administrator,
“ASHA KIRAN” Home for Mentally Retarded,
Department of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Avantika Complex, Rohini,

Sector 1, Delhi – 85. …RESPONDENTS

M.A. UNDER RULE 4(5) OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE RULES, 1987 FOR JOINING
TOGETHER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the applicant in this M.A. are also applicants in the
accompanying O.A. therefore the contents of the same may
be read as part and parcel of this application as the as the
same are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

2. That the grievance of the applicants is one and the same.

Therefore, it would be in the interest of the justice if they
are permitted to file one O.A..

3. That all the applicants are aggrieved by the discriminatory

action of the respondents in not counting their lien period as
approved service for promotion to the post of Section Officer
and all the applicants are challenging the order dated
26.11.2014.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid and circumstances it is most prayed

that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the
applicants to file an O.A. for redressal of their grievances
caused by the respondents.

AND

Pass any further order as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit
and proper.

DELHI

DATE: APPLICANT
 THROUGH

COUNSELS

PANKAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES

OFF- 102, FF, NIPUN PLAZA, SEC-1,
VAISHALI, GZB. (U.P.)-201010
E-mail Id: aorpankajkumar@gmail.com
M. NO.: 9958683901, 8755349012
 IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

M.A. NO. OF 2021

IN

O.A. No. OF 20211

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Mukesh W/o Sh. Rajender Singh

R/o VPO Bali Kuturpur,
Teh. Ganour, Distt. Sonepat, HR.

2. Rakesh Kumari W/o Amarjeet Malik

R/o H. No. 236, Tikri Border, Delhi-41

3. Kamlesh Devi W/o Sh. Kishan Chand

R/o A-128 Kamrudin Nagar,
Nangloi, Delhi-41

4. Sarita Yadav D/o Sh. Sube Singh

R/o VPO Lawan, Teh. Mohandergarh,
Haryana

5. Anju Devi D/o Sh. Ranbir Singh

R/o H. No. 174/31 Shastri
Colony, Gali No. 2 Reliance Tower,
Gohana Road, Sonepat.

6. Neelam Devi W/o Sh. Sukhender

R/o VPO. Matindu Distt. Sonepat
Teh. Kharkhoda state, Haryana
7. Nisha W/o Vinod Kumar
R/o VPO. Paraman, Teh. Kharkhoda,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana

8. Parveen Rani W/o Sandeep Dhaiya

R/o H. No. 635, VPO. Papli, Teh.
Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana

9. Ranjeeta W/o Sandeep

R/o H. No. 575 Village
Jaunti, Delhi-81

10. Kavita W/o Sh. Parveen Kumar

R/o H. No. 689/30, Gali No. 1
Vikas Nagar, Kakroi Road
Sonepat

11. Poonam W/o Sh. Abhimanyu

R/o H. No. 601, Ward No. 34,
Vijay Nagar Jhajjar Chungi,
Rohtak

12. Preeti W/o Sh. Pardeep

R/o H. No. 476, 77 Sec-7
Housing Board, Bhadurgargh

13. Kavita D/o Sh. Dayakishan

R/o H. No. 192/3 Gali No. 3, Line
Par, Shankar Garden
Bahadurhargh

14. Sonia D/o Ramchander

R/o H. No. 592/11 Gali No. 3
Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgargh

15. Sunita W/o Azad Singh

R/o H. No. 195/226, VPO.
Bankher Narela Delhi-40
16. Babita W/o sh. Pawan Kumar
R/o VPO. Ladrawan Distt.
Jhajjar

17. Maneesha W/o Naveen

R/o VPO. Barona Distt.
Sonepat Kharkhoda Haryana

18. Sapna Rani W/o Rajesh Tanya

R/o H. No. 3196 Mahindra Park,
Rani Bagh Delhi-34

19. Monika D/o Sh. Jagbir Singh

R/o VPO. Thana Kalan
Distt. Sonepat

20. Darshna Devi W/o Bijender Sharma

R/o VPO Kiwana Distt. Panipat
Teh. Samalkha Haryana

21. Kusum Lata D/o Ajeet Singh

R/o VPO. Lahrara Teh. Sonepat
Haryana

22. Rakhi W/o Sh. Jitender Kumar

R/o H. No. 265 Village Naharpur
Sec 7, Rohini Delhi-85

23. Nisha Dogra W/o Jeewan Singh Dogra

R/o B9/186 FF, Sec 4 Rohini
Delhi-85

24. Meenu Rani W/o Sh. Bijender Rana

R/o H. No. 73, Village Mungeshpur
Delhi-39

25. Kiran Devi D/o Hari Chand

R/o Village Kohla Teh. Gohana Distt.
Sonepat, Haryana
26. Babita Chaudhary W/o Vijay Kumar
R/o VPO, Shurdhi, P.O. Dhakala
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana

…APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Through its Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Near Sectt.,
Near ITO, New Delhi.

2. The Director,
Directorate of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, GLNS Complex,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi - 02.

3. The Administrator,
“ASHA KIRAN” Home for Mentally Retarded,
Department of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Avantika Complex, Rohini,

Sector 1, Delhi – 85. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Smt Mukesh. Aged about ___ yrs., W/o Sh. Rajender Singh,
R/o VPO Bali Kuturpur, Teh. Ganour, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana,
currently at Delhi, do hereby verify that the contents of the
accompanying M.A. under Rule 4(5) of the Central
Administrative Procedure Rules, 1987 for joining together from
para no. 1 to 3 are true to my personal knowledge and para
no. ___ to ___ believed to be true on legal advice and that I
have not suppressed any material fact.

NEW DELHI

DATE:

(MUKESH)