14.11.2024
Delhi
High Court
Regularization
of service - Adhoc employees are entitled to be regularised in service if they
have worked for a long period to time – Delhi High Court
Delhi
High Court on 14.11.2024 directed the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board to
regularize the services of ad-hoc Assistant Secretary-I with all consequential
benefits. Directive paragraphs of Order dated 14.11.2024, passed by Delhi High
Court in ‘Jitender & Ors. Vs. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board &
Ors.’, WPC No. 13332/2018, reads as under: -
“11.
In my view, case of the Petitioners squarely falls within the four corners of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of
India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1533, where the Supreme Court has
observed that essence of employment and rights thereof are to be determined by
looking at the actual course of employment as it has evolved over a period of
time. Continuous service in the capacity of regular employees, performing
duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts and their selection
through a process that mirrors the process of regular recruitment constitute a
substantive departure from a temporary and scheme specific nature of initial
engagement. It was held that the appellants in that case were promoted by a process
overseen by DPCs and their sustain service over several years without any
indication of temporary nature of their roles merited a reconsideration of
their employment status. Significantly, the Supreme Court also observed that
the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi (3) and
Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, itself distinguishes between irregular and illegal
appointments underscoring that the appointments made after following the
procedure for regular appointments such as conduct of written examination or
interview etc. cannot be termed as illegal.
12.
In Uma Devi (supra), the Supreme Court observed that there may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) are made of people who
are duly qualified and against duly sanctioned posts and employees have
continued to work for 10 years or more but without intervention of the Courts
or Tribunals, question of regularisation of their services must be considered
on merits. The principles elucidated in Vinod Kumar (supra) and Uma
Devi (supra), were recently echoed in Rajkaran Singh and Others v. Union
of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2138 and the Supreme Court observed
that the essence of employment cannot be merely determined by initial terms of
appointment and applied this principle to the case under consideration and held
that the appellants were consistently treated as equivalent to regular
Government employees and mere classification as temporary was only a formal
nomenclature.
13.
It bears repetition to state that in the present case, Petitioners were
promoted to the post of Assistant Secretary-I through a regular process of
promotion after satisfying all eligibility criteria and on recommendations of
DPCs and have continued on sanctioned posts over a considerable period of time.
The trajectory of the career path shows that they were performing jobs
indistinguishable from the regular employees and significantly Respondents made
no effort to revert them to the feeder cadres understanding the method by which
they were promoted. Petitioners have illustrated through Office Orders that
several other persons appointed as Assistant Secretary-I were regularised
though their initial appointments were on ad hoc basis and this position is uncontroverted.
14.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed directing the
Respondents to regularise the service of the Petitioners from the respective
dates of their appointments on the post of Assistant Secretary-I on ad hoc
basis, save and except, in the case of Petitioner No. 1 who has expired during
the pendency of this petition and the legal heirs have chosen not to contest
the petition. All consequential benefits flowing out of regularisation shall be
granted to the Petitioners.
15.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
[Jitender
& Ors. Vs. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors., WPC No.
13332/2018, decided on 14.11.2024, Delhi High Court]
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura
Extension,
New Delhi - 110014
483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003
Mobile – 9891403206
Landline – 011 - 35554905
Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment