NITIN KUMAR YADAV vs AIIMS

1
Item No.15/ C-IV O.A. No.3315/2026
(Diary No.9528/2026)


Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
(Nainital Circuit Sitting)

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

O.A. No.3315/2026
(Diary No.9528/2026)

st
This the 21 day of August, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
NITIN KUMAR YADAV S/o Narendra Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 39 Years, R/o 83, Muzaffarnagar Road,
Khajuri, Akbarpur, Sharanpur, Uttar Pradesh – 247669

…Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Rituparn Uniyal with Mr.
Abhishek Usha Singh and Ms. Deeksah Saggi)

Versus

1. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
(AIIMS RISHIKESH), Through its Executive Director,
Virbhadra Marg, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand – 249203.

2. UNION OF INDIA Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana
Azad Road, New Delhi –110011.

3. RAJDEEP ENTERPRISES Through its Managing
Director, 601, Shalin Complex, Nr Hotel Haveli, Sector
– 11, Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382010. Also At: AIIMS
Compound, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-249203.
(PROFORMA)
…Respondents

(By Advocates: Mr. D S Shukla)
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:45+05'30'

2
Item No.15/ C-IV O.A. No.3315/2026
(Diary No.9528/2026)


ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present Original Application filed under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
“a) Direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider and
regularize the services of the Applicant against the post of
Junior Engineer (Electricals) in AIIMS Rishikesh, in view of
his uninterrupted service since 02.09.2016 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 1, 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
Junior Engineer (Electricals), 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) 1
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, 16 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.”
2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel
appearing for the applicant submitted that, although
the applicant has been engaged through an
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:45+05'30'

3
Item No.15/ C-IV O.A. No.3315/2026
(Diary No.9528/2026)


outsourcing agency since his initial engagement and
continues to receive his wages through the contractor,
he has, for the last about 12 to 14 years, been
working under the direct supervision, control and
disciplinary authority of the official respondents.
3. Learned counsel further drew our attention to
the fact that the official respondents have not
disputed that the applicant is discharging his duties
under their direct control and supervision. However,
he fairly conceded that the salary of the applicant is
being paid by the contractor. Placing reliance upon
the judgments referred to in the Original Application,
learned counsel contended that the applicant is
entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
official respondents opposed the grant of any relief
and submitted that the present Original Application is
not maintainable. According to him, since the
applicant has admittedly been engaged through an
outsourcing agency, any grievance relating to his
service conditions lies against the contractor and falls
outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:45+05'30'

4
Item No.15/ C-IV O.A. No.3315/2026
(Diary No.9528/2026)


14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was
further submitted that no representation has been
made by the applicant to the official respondents
seeking redressal of his grievances. It is also
contended that Respondent No. 3 is only a proforma
party.
5. The Registry has raised an objection regarding
the maintainability of the Original Application on the
ground that no representation has been made by the
applicant before approaching this Tribunal, as
contemplated under Section 20 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.
6. Be that as it may, having considered the rival
submissions and without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of either party, particularly on the issue of
maintainability and the nature of engagement of the
applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant,
on instructions, prayed that the present Original
Application may be treated as a representation.
7. Accepting the aforesaid request, and in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:45+05'30'

5
Item No.15/ C-IV O.A. No.3315/2026
(Diary No.9528/2026)


the objection raised by the Registry is dispensed with.
The Registry is directed to assign a regular number to
the Original Application.
8. Accordingly, treating the present Original
Application as a representation, the competent
authority amongst the official respondents shall
consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned
and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
9. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival
claims, including the question of maintainability, the
nature of engagement of the applicant, or his
entitlement to any relief, and all rights and
contentions of the parties are kept open.
10. The O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms, at the admission stage itself. Pending M.As., if
any, shall also stand disposed of.
11. No order as to costs.

SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:45+05'30'

6
Item No.15/ C-IV O.A. No.3315/2026
(Diary No.9528/2026)


(DR. ANAND S KHATI) (MANISH GARG)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ sm /
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:45+05'30'