Dr Sunil kumar vs HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

Item No. 29 (C-IV)

1
OA No. 3308/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRAT
IVE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, N

O.A. No. 3308/2
2025

th
This the 15 Day of Oct
tober, 2026

Hon’ble Dr.
Hon’ble Shr

Anand S Khati, Member (A)
ri Rajveer Singh Verma, Memb
ber (J)
1. Dr. Sunil
Prasad, Me
Medical U
Pethiya Ba
Adrash Co
Jaganpurė P

2. Dr. Sanja
Rajak, S
Nawada(Bih
Road, New
Jharkhand-8

3. Dr. Saty
Prasad, M
BiyBni-803
Moh. Gyatr
803101


l Kumar, Aged- 58 Years, S/o L
edical Officer In-charge, Sta
Unit, Phulwarisarif, Uma Smir
Late Ram Lakhan
atic cum Mobile
riti Guest House,
1505 r/o Sukriti,
azar, Phulwarisarif, Patna-801
olony, Road No. 4E, Kheman
nichak, PO New
Patna-800027
ay Kumar, Aged- 59 Years, S/o L
Late Chandeshwar
atic Dispensary,
GA-I, Ad Bangla
eritelya, Koderma,
r. Medical Officer, Sta
har). R/o Nandini Appartment
w Kedia Dharam Kanta, Jhume
825409
yendra Kumar, Aged- 59 Years
s, S/o Late Bhatu
pital, Biharsharif,
edical Officer, Central Hosp
216 (Bihar) R/o Bharabpar,
ri Mandir say purav, Nana Road,
Ramchanderpur,
Nalanda (Bihar).-

…. Applicants
(By Advoca
ate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Ms. Sw
wati)

Versus

1. Union of
Welfare, Go

2. The Secre
Shram Shak

3. The Welf
Ministry of
Sadan, 5th F
Digha Road

India through The Secretary, Mi
overnment of India, Nirman Bha
inistry of Health & Family
awan,New Delhi-110011
etary, Ministry of Labour & Emp
kti Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
ployment, Government of India,

fare & Cess Commissioner, Labo
our Welfare Organization,
nment of India, Karpuri Thakur
Labour & Employment, Govern
Floor (D-Wing), Kendriya Karya
d, Patna-800025 (Bihar)
alay Parisar, GPOA, Ashiyana
...Respondents
s
(By Advoca
ate: Mr. U Srivastava)

---

SURAJ SURAJ
BISHT
BISHT

Item No. 29 (C-IV)

2
OA No. 3308/2025

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, M
Member (A)

In
n the present Original Applicatio
on, filed under Section 19 of the
e
Admin
nistrative Act, 1985 the applican
nt has prayed for the following
g
relief:-
-
“(
of
de
di

(ii
qu
lim
in
re
co
Ju

(ii
Re
of
ap
25
an
ab
Su
Ad

(iv
(v
nu
tre
tre
Tr
A/
H
in
O
an

(v)
Re
th

(v
al

(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may gr
f quashing the impugned orders dated
eclaring to the effect that the
iscriminatory.
raciously be pleased to pass an order
r
4
d
d 23.5.2025 and order dated 7.8.2024
same are illegal, arbitrary and
i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may grac
uashing the impugned order dated 1
ciously be pleased to pass an order of
19.4.2017 and 22.8.2017 only to the
f
e
n
6
mited extent regarding not mentioning
n favour of the Applicants i.e. 28.0
g the effective date of Regularization
01.1997, 25.04.1997 and 31.07.1996
espectively declaring to the effect
that the same are arbitrary, un-
against the Principles of Service
-
e
onstitutional, punitive, unjust and
urisprudence.
ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may
espondents to treat the date of regula
f Medical Officer Group-"A" with ef
ppointment as Medical Officer
5.04.1997 and 31.07.1996 respectivel
ny date of regularization if treated, o
b-initio wrong in view of the various
upreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts
graciously be pleased to direct the
arization of the Applicants to the post
effect from the date of their Ad-hoc
e
t
c
Group-"A" i.e. from 28.01.1997,
ly with all consequential benefits and
otherwise be declared null, void and

d
d
Judicial Pronouncements of Hon'ble
and different Benches of the Central
e
l
dministrative Tribunals.
v) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may gr
vii) of the Regularization Order as c
raciously be pleased to declare para-
-
s
e
contained in Annexure-A/8 Series as
the same be quashed and set aside
der Old Pension Scheme instead of
ull, void and ab-initio wrong and t
eating/declaring the Applicants und
eating under New Pension Scheme in
raining Office Memorandum dated 28
f
&
view the Department of Personnel &
8.07 2016 as contained in Annexure-
-
e
/9 as well as judicial pronouncements
High Courts and different Benches of
s of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble
the Central Administrative Tribunals
al Administrative Tribunal passed in
with connecting Original Applications
W.JC. No 17204 of 2015.
s
n
ncluding Patna Bench of the Centra
Original Application No.523 of 2005 w
s
nd Hon'ble High Court, Patna in C. W
v) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may g
graciously be pleased to direct the
deduction of the Applicants treating
e
g
espondents to continue the G.P.F d
hem under Old Pension Scheme withou
ut any delay.
vi) Any other relief which the Hon'bl
le Tribunal deem fit and proper may
g with the costs of litigation.”
y
lso be granted to the applicants along
SURAJ SURAJ
BISHT
BISHT

Item No. 29 (C-IV)

3
OA No. 3308/2025
2. T
he present Original Application
constitutes the second round of
f
litigati
on between the parties. In the ea
arlier round, the Patna Bench of
f
this T
Tribunal, in O.A. No. 050/0
00183/2018, vide order dated
d
09.05.2
2024, issued the following direct
tions:
“1
pr
su
da
up
co
co
D
D
sp
pe
co
sta
gr
in
sim
10. In view of above submissions, this
rinciple of natural justice will be me
ubmit updated representations to comp
s Tribunal deems it fit and proper that
t
o
5
et. The applicants hereby directed to
petent authority within a period of 45
y of this order passed today and if
ays from the date of receipt of copy
pdated representation is filed, or
ompetent authority is hereby dire
onsideration order dated 20.08.201
Division Bench of coordinate Bench o
Dr. N. Swana Latha vs. Union of
f
e
o
any pending representations, the
cted to take decision taking into
18 passed in OA No.285/2016 by
of CAT Hyderabad Bench in case of
y
f
d
d
India by passing a reasoned and
at applicants shall also be provided
peaking order. It is also directed tha
ersonal hearing before taking decis
ompetent authority / respondents s
ion on merits. Needless to say that
shall also take into consideration
n just and proper decision relating to
t
n
o
atutory pension rules for arriving on
rant of pension under old pension sch
n similar cases coordinate Bench of
heme. Taking into consideration that
f this Tribunal has already allowed
t
d
milar nature of claim of similarly plac
ced Medical Officers.
11
co
th
co
co
1. It is also directed that if compe
onclusion that claim of applicants is s
his Tribunal under similar cases th
etent authority/respondents arrive at
t
f
t
l
similar to order of various Benches of
hen competent authority arrives at
e same shall be extended with all
onclusion for grant of pension, the
onsequential benefits.
12
re
pe
ob
th
2. The respondents/competent authori
epresentations of all the applicants by
ity is directed to consider and decide
y reasoned and speaking order within
pt of order passed today. With above
e
n
eriod of 90 days from date of receip
bservations indicated herein above OA
his Tribunal has not expressed any vie
e
A is disposed of. Needless to say that
w on merits of the case.”
t
3. Pu
ursuant to the aforesaid directio
ons, the respondents considered
d
the rep
presentations submitted by the a
applicants and issued an Office
e
Order
dated 07.08.2024, rejecting their
r claims. The relevant portion of
f
the sai
d order reads as follows:
“5
Ku
an
re
pr
w
th
pe
re
5. NOW THEREFORE, having regar
Kumar, Dr. Sandeep Kumar, Dr. Sanja
rd to the representation of Dr Sunil
ay Kumar and Dr. Satyendra Kumar
l
r
T
nd circumstances of the case and the
estricting regularization of ad-hoc ap
extant rules and guidelines of DoPT
ppointment and the fact that specific
appointment on ad-hoc basis that they
c
y
rovisions were made in their offer of a
ill have no claim for regularisation
hat implementation of Order dated
of their ad-hoc service, and the fact
t
n
20.08.2018 in OA 285/2016 is in
ecedent in any matter, the request for
ersonam and not to be quoted as pre
egularization of their service from in
r
c
nitial date of appointment on ad-hoc
SURAJ SURAJ
BISHT
BISHT

Item No. 29 (C-IV)

4
OA No. 3308/2025
ba
co
asis i.e. 28.01.1997, 16.11.1996, 25.0
ould not be acceded to.
04.1997 and 31.07.1996 respectively
y
An
co
an
M
18
Sc
03
nd, in so far as their claim of cove
oncerned, the same is dependent upo
erage under Old Pension Scheme is
on the date of appointment in service
s
e
nd as far as the above 4 doctors a
Medical Officer in the GDMOsub-c
are concerned, their appointment as
cadre of CHS is regularised w.e.f.
s
f
n
d
8.09.2014. Therefore, they are not elig
cheme in terms of DoPPW OM
3.03.2023.
gible for coverage under Old Pension
No. 57/05/2021-P&PW (B) dated
Th
his issues with the approval of the Com
mpetent Authority.”
4. T
he principal ground on which
h the respondents rejected the
e
applica
ants' claim for regularization fro
om their respective initial dates
s
of ad h
hoc appointment is that the terms
s of their appointment expressly
y
stipula
ated that they would have no cla
aim to regularization of their ad
d
hoc se
ervice. The respondents further
contended that the order dated
d
20.08.2
2018 passed by the Hyderabad
Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.
.
No. 28
85/2016, in the case of Dr. N. Sw
warna Latha v. Union of India ,
,
was im
mplemented in personam and
was not to be treated as a
a
preced
dent in any other matter. On t
these grounds, the respondents
s
decline
ed to regularize the applicants'
services with effect from their
r
respect
tive initial dates of ad hoc appoin
ntment.
5. L
earned counsel for the applica
ants drew our attention to the
e
judgme
ent dated 20.08.2018 passed by
y the Hyderabad Bench of this
s
Tribun
nal in O.A. No. 285/2016, titled
Dr. N. Swarna Latha v. Union
n
of Indi
dia and Others . The relevant por
rtion of the said judgment reads
s
as follo
ows:
“16. The O.A. thus, fully succeed
A.12026/05/2008-CHS-1, dt 4.2.2
reasoning) regularizing the appo
2014 is quashed and set aside.
fresh order of regularization of
date of her appointment ie. 20.8.
2200-4000 corresponding to th
(GP-5400), in GDMO Sub Ca
ds. The impugned order vide OM No.
2016 ( which failed to clear the test of
ointment of the applicant from 18-09-

f
-
a
Respondents are directed to issue a
the service of the applicant from the
.96. in the erstwhile pay scale of Rs.
he revised pay scale 15,600-39,600
e

0
adre of CHS. This drill shall be
e
SURAJ SURAJ
BISHT
BISHT

Item No. 29 (C-IV)

5
OA No. 3308/2025
performed within three months f
consequential benefits that arise
of seniority from the date of regu
motion appropriate measures req
from the date of this order and all
out of such action, including fixation
ularization, shall follow, by setting in
quired to comply with the order.”
l
n
n
6. L
earned counsel further placed
reliance on the decision dated
d
21.03.2
2025 rendered by the Kolkata B
Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.
.
No. 35
50/00536/2024, titled Dr. Sanjo
oy Bhattacharyya v. Union of
f
India a
and Anr. , in support of the app
plicants' claim for regularization
n
from th
heir respective initial dates of ap
ppointment.
7. O
Opposing the grant of relief, learn
rned counsel for the respondents
s
relies u
upon the averments made in the
counter affidavit. He submitted
d
that th
he Ministry of Health and Fa
amily Welfare (MoHFW) had
d
referre
ed the matter concerning Dr. N
N. Swarna Latha (supra) to the
e
Depart
tment of Personnel and Trainin
ng (DoPT) for its opinion and
d
concur
rrence regarding implementatio
on of the order passed by the
e
Hydera
abad Bench of this Tribunal
l. Since all available judicial
l
remedi
ies had been exhausted, the Mo
oHFW, in consultation with the
e
Depart
tment of Legal Affairs (DoLA
A) and the DoPT, decided to
o
implem
ment the order dated 20.08.201
8 only in personam and not to
o
treat it
t as a precedent in other cases.
According to the respondents,
,
extend
ding the benefit of the said order
r to the present applicants would
d
amoun
nt to an impermissible expans
sion of an isolated exception,
,
potenti
ially resulting in administrativ
ve anomalies and affecting the
e
princip
ples governing equality in public
c employment.
8 . L
earned counsel for the respond
dents further submitted that the
e
matter
had been referred to the DoLA
A for its opinion regarding the
e
implem
mentation of the order dated
d 20.08.2018 passed by the
e
SURAJ SURAJ
BISHT
BISHT

Item No. 29 (C-IV)

6
OA No. 3308/2025
Hydera
abad Bench of this Tribunal. Up
pon examination of the relevant
t
file, th
he Department of Legal Affa
irs observed that the grounds
s
propos
sed for filing a review petitio
on did not disclose any new
w
eviden
nce concerning the facts of the ca
ase or any error apparent on the
e
face o
of the record. Consequently, th
he learned Additional Solicitor
r
Genera
al, DoLA, opined that the matte
er was not a fit case for filing a
a
review
w petition before the Hon'ble S
Supreme Court of India. It was
s
further
r submitted that Dr. N. Swarna
Latha was ultimately appointed
d
as a re
egular Medical Officer with effe
ect from 20.08.1996 vide Office
e
Memor
randum No. C.18011/4/201
16-CHS.I dated 03.04.2024
4
(Annex
xure-R-4), pursuant to the order
passed by the Hyderabad Bench
h
of this
s Tribunal. The respondents st
tated that the said officer had
d
subseq
quently been promoted to the n
next grades. Nevertheless, they
y
mainta
ained that the order dated 20.0
08.2018 had been implemented
d
strictly
y in personam and could not be
e relied upon as a precedent for
r
extend
ding similar benefits to the presen
nt applicants.
9. W
We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the
e
pleadin
ngs and materials available on r
record. The principal issue that
t
arises f
for consideration is whether the
applicants, who were appointed
d
as Me
edical Officers on an ad hoc b
basis and whose services were
e
subseq
quently regularized are entitled
d to regularization from their
r
respect
tive initial dates of appointment
, together with all consequential
l
benefit
ts, in the light of the judicial p
pronouncements relied upon by
y
them.
SURAJ SURAJ
BISHT
BISHT

Item No. 29 (C-IV)

7
OA No. 3308/2025
10. U
Upon consideration of the rival
submissions and the decisions
s
cited a
at the Bar, particularly the judgm
ment dated 20.08.2018 passed by
y
the Hy
yderabad Bench of this Tribunal
l in O.A. No. 285/2016, we find
d
that th
he applicants have relied u
upon a judicial determination
n
concer
rning the regularization of a Med
dical Officer from the date of her
r
initial
appointment. The responden
ts, on the other hand, have
e
primar
rily sought to distinguish the sai
id decision on the ground that it
t
was im
mplemented in personam . How
wever, the mere assertion that a
a
judicia
al order was implemented in
personam does not, by itself,
,
dispen
se with the requirement of exa
amining whether the principles
s
laid do
own therein are applicable to
similarly situated persons. The
e
applica
ability of such a decision must b
be determined with reference to
o
the rel
evant facts, the governing servic
ce rules and the legal principles
s
enunci
iated therein.
11. In
n the present case, having regard
d to the material placed before us
s
and the
e judicial pronouncements relied
d upon by the applicants, we are
e
of the
considered view that the appli
icants' claims for regularization
n
from th
heir respective initial dates of a
appointment warrant acceptance.
.
Accord
dingly, the respondents are direc
cted to regularize the services of
f
the ap
pplicants with effect from the
eir respective initial dates of
f
appoin
ntment, namely, 28.01.1997, 2
25.04.1997 and 31.07.1996, as
s
applica
able to each applicant, and to ex
xtend all consequential benefits
s
admiss
sible to them in accordance wi
ith law. The aforesaid exercise
e
shall b
be completed within a period of
f three months from the date of
f
receipt
t of a certified copy of this order
.
SURAJ SURAJ
BISHT
BISHT

Item No. 29 (C-IV)

8
OA No. 3308/2025

12. T
he Original Application stands
s disposed of in the aforesaid
d
terms.
All pending Miscellaneous App
plications, if any, shall also stand
d
dispose
ed of accordingly. There shall be
e no order as to costs.

(Rajve
Memb

eer Singh Verma)
ber (J)
(Dr. Anand Khati)
Member(A)
)
/sb/






SURAJ SURAJ
BISHT
BISHT