SHRIKANT T SURYAVANSHI vs INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH

1
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00092/2025

ORDER RESERVED ON: 17.08.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 31.08.2026
CORAM:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)


Shri Shrikant T Suryavanshi
S/o Tulasidas Suryavanshi,
Age: 46 years, Occ: Service,
rd
R/o: 3 Main, Shivaji Nagar,
Belagavi – 590 001.
Working as Garden Mali
In the Office ICMR,
National Institute of Traditional Medicine
And presently working in the same office on outsource,
Belagavi – 590 010. …Applicant

(By Advocate Shri M. Rajakumar)

Vs.

1. The Director General,
Indian Council of Medical Research,
(Dept. of Health Research),
V. Ramalingaswamy Bhavan,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi – 110 029.

2. The Director,
Regional Medical Research Centre,
Indian Council of Medical Research,
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

2
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


Nehru Nagar, Belagavi – 590 010. ...Respondents

(By Shri K. Gajendra Vasu, Senior Panel Counsel)


O R D E R
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This OA under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 is filed claiming following reliefs:-

st
“(i) Direct the 1 respondent to consider the case of
the applicant for age relaxation to regularization service
nd
as recommended by 2 respondent dated 28/05/2019 at
Annexure-A5 for having employed the applicant from
2006 to 31/01/2025 and selected through competitive
exam by selection committee without any further delay.
(ii) Direct the respondent to consider the applicant
representation dated 23/04/2021 (Annexure-A14) and
reminder dated 11/12/2024 Annexure-A16 and
st
consequently direct the 1 respondent give age relaxation
as recommended by 2nd respondent with all
consequential benefits.
(iii) Pass any other order or direction or grant any
other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal, in the
interest of justice, equity and fair play in administration.”

2. These reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in
para 5 of the OA which are as follows:-

“5.1 That, the admittedly applicant has appointed as
Mali part time casual labor in the office of the 2nd
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

3
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


Respondent in the year 2006 to 2021, till he has worked
on the same duty and responsibility in the Respondents
department. Applicant after selected by selection
committee in the year 2018 same was forwarded to 1st
respondent office for age relaxation and thereafter his
work has entrusted to out sources management in the
year 202l and same duty and responsibility by directly
transfer the amount to his bank account till today through
2ndrespondent office. That the applicant is now overaged
and not eligible to apply for appointment, the applicant
family i.e. wife, minor children and aged parents were
only defending his earnings, because of non-regularize
the applicant service his family very difficult to lead day
to day lively wood they were entirely defending applicant
earning now orally terminated by respondents. Thus this
Hon'ble Tribunal may direct the 1 respondent to consider
the recommendation made by 2nd respondent to
relaxation of age for regularize his service without any
further delay till than continue his work.
5.2 That, the undisputed fact that, the 2nd
respondent has issued the notification No.
RMRC/ICMR/BGM/14-15/476 for filling of 2 UR
MTS(Technical) post and same was communicated to
applicant on 14/06/2014 in response to applicant made
an application for the post of MTS(Technical) and
thereafter directed the applicant to appear before
Regional Medical Research centre ICMR, Nehru Nagar,
Belgaum on 18/07/2014 at 9.30 hrs for appear
competitive examination and examination and question
paper will consist of 70 marks objective type question on
general knowledge and subject knowledge and the name
of the candidates will be declared in the afternoon and
they will have to appear for personal/oral interview on
19/07/2014 at 10.00 hrs due to want of vacancy his
candidature could not appear in selection list, during the
said selection 2nd respondent has given age relaxation in
said selection process for person who are selected but fail
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

4
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


to extend the said benefits to applicant by violating the
Article 14 and 16 of constitution of India.
5.3 That, the 2ndrespondent department has once
again issued the notification No. ICMR-NITM/BGV/18-
19/583 for filling of 1 UR MTS (Technical) post and same
was communicated to applicant on 03/09/2018 in
response to which the applicant made an application for
the post of MTS (Technical) as advertised. That the
applicant to appear before Regional Medical Research
centre ICMR, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum on 27/09/2018 at 2
PM for written examination in competitive mode and
question paper will consist of 100 marks objective type
question on general knowledge and subject knowledge,
based on his performance in the above competitive
written examination applicant has been short listed and
directed to appear before the selection committee meeting
held on 28/09/2018. That the based on the highest marks
in the competitive written test, the selection committee
has recommended the applicant name for the post of MTS
(Technical). But 2nd respondent instead of regularized
the applicant service for given age relaxation as extended
to earlier batch now recommended applicant name for
age relaxation to 1st respondent which is still pending
more than 7 years. That the act of the respondents is
illegal arbitrary and violation of principle of natural
justice.
5.4 That, the after fulfilled all criteria adopted by
the selection committee of respondent department has
forwarded the applicant name by the 2nd Respondent to
1st respondent for age relaxation as per Office
Memorandum dated 10/11/2017 in clause 12 of ICMR
Technical Cadre Integrated Recruitment and Assessment
Rules in which it is only 2nd respondent has empower for
age relaxation, in subsequent clarification dated
17/11/2023 in which mentioned that, the mandatory for
approval from director on the request for consider up to 5
years age relaxation for regular appointment who are
working in ICMR projects continuously provided he has
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

5
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


entered in to the project service within prescribed age
limit for the post. That the initial engagement of applicant
was within the age limit and as per the Office
Memorandum dated 10/11/2017 in clause 12 of ICMR
Technical Cadre Integrated Recruitment and Assessment
Rules applicant has entitled for age relaxation despite the
fact even 7 years lapsed after recommendation still not
yet regularized.

5.5 That the applicant initial appointment was in the
year 2006 which is well within the age limit as prescribed
in said Rules and applicant appeared in the year 2014
want of vacancy he was not selected and again appear
and selected in the year 2018 itself on that period 2nd
respondent only competent to consider age relaxation
and subsequent OM dated 17/11/2023 to apply only
person who selected after 17/11/2023, moreover
applicant engagement is neither irregular nor illegal and
his selection through selection committee by competitive
written examination as in service candidate. Hence
bounden duty of the respondents department to regularize
the service of the applicant as per their own Office
Memorandum dated 10/11/2017 in clause 12 of ICMR
Technical Cadre Integrated Recruitment and Assessment
Rules. But deliberately and intentionally respondents not
yet regularized applicant service even 7 years from
recommendation and 19 years from engagement.
5.6 That, 2nd respondent after recommended
applicant name for age relaxation while country was
severely facing Covid-19, the respondents department has
utilized his service and deputed the applicant for admin
support staff, based on his effective work performance the
Scientist-E&I/C Administrative, Scientist-E & Nodal
officer and Scientist-G & Director, in the office ICMR
were issued the Covid-19 Warrior certificate to the
applicant on 26/01/2021 and certifies that, to recognize
the untiring efforts of applicant Sri. Shrikanth T
Suryavansi which only after he was recommended by the
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

6
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


committee for regular appointment. But a respondent has
failed to consider those aspects from 2018 for age
relaxation even 7 years has lapsed.
5.7 That, the CLTS Scheme as a clarification of
DoPT O.M. dated 06.06.2002 refers to its earlier O.M.
dated 07.06.1988 for strict compliance while making
engagement laborers. The DOP&T O.M dated
07.06.1988 prohibits engagement of casual workers for
attending to work of a regular nature. Further Para 1 (x)
of the said O.M. clearly states that; "The regularization
of the services of the casual workers will continue to be
governed by the instructions issued by the Department in
this regard. While considering such regularization, a
casual worker may be given relaxation in the upper age
limit only if at the time of initial recruitment as a casual
worker, he had not crossed the upper age limit for the
relevant post have considered the candidature of
applicant for age relaxation when applicant requested for
direct recruitment for the post.
5.8 The Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing the
Appeal (Civil) No.3595-3612 of 1999inUmadevi's case
has given a relief to those respondents, in exercise of its
power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice
to them. The relevant extracts from para 46 of its
judgment dated 10.04.2006which is reproduced below:
sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant)
the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts
by a regular process of selection. But when regular
recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A.
No.3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes
Department similarly situated, will be allowed to
complete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the
recruitment and giving some weightage for their having
been engaged for work in the Department for significant
period of time. That would be the extent of this exercise of
power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution
to do justice to them. “The respondents have also failed
to extend the similar relief.”
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

7
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


5.9 Under the above stated facts and circumstances,
the act of the Respondents in not yet consider the
recommendation of the Applicant for age relaxation after
selected through competitive written examination by the
selection committee. when the recruitment was in
progress, applicant applied and selected through
competitive examination but in contrary to Office
Memorandum dated 10/11/2017 in clause 12 of ICMR
Technical Cadre Integrated Recruitment and Assessment
Rules the Recruitment Rules besides the Hon'ble Apex
Court verdict. The Respondents being part and parcel of
Central Government and as a model employer ought to
have followed the directive principles and law governing
the employees.

5.10. It is submitted that the Applicant is under the guise
of outsourcing of same work and responsibility of
Services and transfer monthly salary to his bank account
through respondent department and without any regard
for the significant years of service rendered by the
Applicant. As a result, the Applicant, who has spent prime
time of his life period in serving the organization of
Respondent is now orally terminated and unemployed
and has no other source to eke out of his livelihood in
contrary to Hon'ble Apex Court verdict in 2010 AIR SCW
6510 Dated 10/09/2010 in para 30, "held that, The facts
and circumstances pleaded by the appellants and the
number of years they have spent as volunteers and since
they have no other avenue for their alternative
employment because of their age factor", in para 31 "in
our considered view, even matter of discharge the
authority concerned cannot act arbitrary while
discharging an employee, however in the instant case the
appellant are being discharged from service for
indiscipline, the appellants should have been a
reasonable opportunities of showing cause against the
action proposed to be taken against the. Admittedly no
such opportunities were given to them. Therefore we are
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

8
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


of the view that the action of the respondents is contrary
to their own statutory rules and in violation of principles
of natural justice. In para 32 held that, even without
going in to the question whether the appellant are eligible
for the protection under Article 311 of the constitution, in
our view, the respondents seem to have acted in an
arbitrary manner by terminating the service of the
appellants, who have been working as home guards for
last 15-17 years. They are all overaged. They may find
difficult to find alternative employment. Therefore in the
facts and circumstances of this case and the interest of
justice, we deem it proper to set aside the order of
termination passed by respondents dated 02/12/2004 and
direct the respondents to reinstate the appellants the
appellants as home guards without back wages. The case
of the applicant is squarely covered by the said judgment
and respondents at least could have considered the
candidature of applicant in for age relaxation when
direct recruitment for the post of MTS (Technical
Assistant) and selection committee recommended
applicant name for secure highest marks in competitive
exam conducted by respondent department s by
continuing his service till 01/02/2025 and then orally
terminated the applicant service.
5.11 It is submitted that the Applicant was
continuously worked from 2006 to 2025 under the
respondent department as same work and responsibility
and without any regard for the significant years of
service rendered by the Applicant and his work have been
entrusted outsource management from June 2021,
without due process of law now orally terminated. As a
result, the Applicant, who has spent prime time of his life
period in serving the organization of Respondent was
entrusted outsource management and now orally
terminated and has no other source to eke out of his
livelihood. The bounden of the respondents to consider
the age relaxation as recommended immediately even 7
years was lapsed at least could have not considered the
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

9
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


candidature of Applicant in for age relaxation which is
pending more than 7 years after recommendation.”

[Note:- We find too many grammatical and spelling
mistakes but we have brought it as it is mentioned in the
OA.]

3. The brief facts of the applicant as mentioned in the synopsis
and list of date of events is following:-

“ The earlier round of litigation, applicant filed writ
petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Dharwad
Bench and sought the relief of consider his representation
dated 23/04/2021 on the ground that, applicant has put in
satisfactory service from 2006 to 2021 with one day break up
in every year and service of applicant may discontinued on are
before 30/06/2021, hence requested for interim protection. As
per the assurance given by the 2nd respondent, the applicant
withdrawn the said writ petition, but instead of regularized the
applicant service as assurance given. That the 2nd respondent
entrusted his engagement through private contract and same
duty and responsibility, because the age relaxation of the
applicant not yet decided by the 1st respondent which pending
since 2018. That, the applicant waiting more than three year
from the date of withdrawal the writ petition, but still not yet
issued any appointment order as issued to similarly situated
person and applicant till today continued his service on
contract basis through private agency. The applicant once
again made request to the 2nd respondent on 11/12/2024 for
regularize his service as extended to similarly situated his
colleagues but still not yet consider applicant request which
was pending from in the year 2021. Instead of issued the
appointment order as recommended by the 2nd respondent,
now based on the oral direction of respondents, the contractor
not entrust any work to applicant from 01/02/2025. Hence,
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

10
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


present application for direction to consider his representation
for regularize his service as recommended by the 2nd
Respondent.

Sl.
No.
Date Events
01 12/09/2006 Applicant employed on the Post of Mali
02 16/06/2014 Applicant participated in Notification for Recruitment want
of vacancy not selected
03 10/11/2017 ICMR Assessment Rules 2017
04 03/09/2018 Applicant participated in Notification for Recruitment and
recommended by committee
nd
05 28/05/2019 2 Respondent recommended for age relaxation
nd
06 17/12/2019 Reminder by 2 respondent
07 26/01/2021 Covid-19 Warrior certificate issued to applicant
08 23/04/2021 Representation by applicant
09 17/01/2022 Order passed in W.P. No.102313/2021
10 11/12/2024 Reminder by applicant
11 31/01/2025 Applicant orally terminated
”

4. MA No. 80/2025 has been filed for condonation of delay.
On notice, reply statement and objections to MA for condonation of
delay has been filed. Further, the applicant has filed rejoinder.
Memos have been filed by both the parties for submitting certain
documents.
5. The case came up for final hearing on 17.08.2026. Shri
M.Rajakumar for the applicant and Shri K. Gajendra Vasu for the
respondents were present and heard.
6. We have carefully gone through the entire records and
considered the rival contentions.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

11
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


7. It is evident from the submissions of the parties that facts of
the case are not disputed, neither any of the documents presented
are disputed.
8. From the submissions of the parties following facts and
issues are before us for consideration: -
Facts and issues in dispute for consideration:-
a) Whether the applicant was appointed against any vacant
post and through constitutionally recognised due process of
selection?
b) Whether the applicant possessed the eligibility to hold the
vacant post of Mali at the time of his appointment in 2006?
c) Whether the appointment of the applicant initially on
contract basis till 31.03.2007 pursuant to interview dated
19.09.2006 vide the respondents letter dated 12.09.2006 and his
reporting for duty on 13.10.2006 and then continuation of service
by various letters of the respondents including Ref No.
RMRC/BGM/509/138 dated 04.04.2007 w.e.f. 04.04.2007 and then
further continuation vide Ref No.RMRC/BGM/509/126 dated
01.04.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2008 intentionally breaking service and
further extending his service vide Ref No.
RMRC/BGM/512/09/10/148 dated 02.04.2009 w.e.f. 02.04.2009
and then further continuation vide Ref No. RMRC/BGM/10-
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

12
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


11/515/130 dated 03.04.2010 w.e.f. 03.04.2010 and further
continuation vide Ref No. RMRC/BGM/10-11/515/137 dated
02.04.2011 w.e.f. 02.04.2011 on the rolls of the applicant by
technically breaking service after every 89 days and continuing him
till 2021 was just, legal, legitimate and a fair labour practice or fair
personnel policy by the respondents?
d) After 2021 suddenly changing the terms of direct contract
of the applicant which was earlier direct fixed contractual service
changing it through an outsourced agency and continuing him as an
outsourced employee till 2025 was just, legal, legitimate and a fair
labour practice or personnel policy by the respondents?
e) Whether after 2025 suddenly discontinuation of the long
service of the applicant initially through direct contract and
subsequently through the contractor, was just, legal, legitimate and
a fair labour practice or personnel policy by the respondents?
f) Non-action of the Director General, ICMR on one-time
relaxation of age since the year 2018 even though the selection
committee after due process of advertisement and interview and
selection selected the applicant and found him otherwise eligible for
the post of MTS was a fair and legitimate labour practice or
personnel policy ignoring the long meritorious service of the
applicant in the respondent organisation?
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

13
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


g) How does the case of the applicant fit into the leading
Hon’ble Apex Court judgment of Umadevi case, (2006) 4 SCC 1
(DD: 10.04.2006)?
h) If so, what orders?
9. No.RMRC/BGM/R/2005-06/5/386 dated 12.09.2006
(Annexure – A1) is an interview call letter from the Regional
Medical Research Centre (RMRC), which is one of the
organisations of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
with the following contents:-

“With reference to your application for the post of Mali
at this Centre, you are directed to appear for the
interview on 19th September 2006 at 11.00 am.
You should be present at this Centre half an hour earlier
to the interview.
Please produce all the certificates and testimonials in
original regarding qualification, age, experience and
caste at the time of interview.
No TA and DA will be paid for attending the interview.
RMRC is situated opposite KLE's Hospital on National
Highway 4.”

The document is self-evident that the respondent department
had advertised post of Mali and as the applicant was one of the
candidates, he was called for interview on 19.09.2006 at 11 a.m.
and he was asked to produce all the certificates and testimonials in
original regarding qualification, age, experience and caste. This
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

14
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


document is further substantiated by the document produced by the
respondents with their reply statement as Annexure – R/1, which is
publication in the newspaper – The New Indian Express, Belgaum
dated 29.08.2006 (Tuesday), wherein clearly applications were
invited for the following temporary posts on contract basis
(consolidated salary) for Regional Medical Research Centre,
(ICMR), Belgaum – Mali, one post, where essential qualification
th
was also mentioned as 5 Pass with rural/agricultural background
with 2 years’ experience in gardening at a reputed organization, age
28 years relaxable to 40 years, salary of Rs.4,787/- p.m.. In general
conditions, the following was mentioned:-

“ General Conditions
Qualification, experience and age are relaxable. In
deserving cases including SC/ST candidates. All the
above posts are temporary and are on contract basis .
Applications on plain paper giving full details along with
necessary attested testimonials should be sent to the
Officer-In-Charge, Regional Medical Research Centre,
(ICMR) Nehru Nagar, Belgaum – 590 010 on or before
08-09-2006 . Applications received after due date will not
be entertained. The applicants are requested to mention
the name of the post on the top of the cover. No travelling
allowance will be admissible to the candidates called for
interview. Applications will be short listed and limited
candidates will be called for interview. The decision of
the Officer-In-Charge will be final in this regard.
Canvassing in any form will be treated as
disqualification .”

Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

15
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


Clearly, the application of the applicant and his call for
interview as substantiated by Annexure – A1 is further
substantiated by that through a public notice in the newspaper.
These applications were called and pursuant to these interviews, the
applicant was duly selected and an offer of appointment was given
to him on 09.10.2006 with Ref No.RMRC/BGM/E/Rect/2006-
07/4/489, which is filed as Annexure – A2 with Subject – Offer of
Appointment to Shri Shrikant T. Suryavanshi for the post of Mali
on Contract Basis (consolidated salary). Inter alia other things, this
appointment letter mentions that this post is purely on temporary
basis up to 31.03.2007 and in the terms and conditions the
following is mentioned:-

“ Terms and Conditions:
I. The appointment is purely temporary and will not
confer any title to a permanent employment.
II. The appointment is on contract basis upto March -
2007 only. However, depending on your performance
your contract may be renewed.
III. The appointment may be terminated at any time by a
month's notice from either side, viz, the appointee or the
appointing authority without assigning any reasons. The
appointing authority however, reserves the rights of
terminating the services of the appointee forthwith or
before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice.
IV. Other conditions of the service will be governed by
the relevant rule and orders in force from time to time.
V. Officer-in-Charge reserves the right to assign any
other work depending on the requirement of the Institute.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

16
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


The appointment will be further subjected to:
I. Production of the certificate of fitness from the
competent Medical Authority viz, Civil Surgeon, Dist
Medical Officer, or a Medical Officer of a equivalent
status.
II. Certificate of Educational and other technical
qualifications.
III. Certificate of age.
IV. Character Certificate issued by previous
employer/Head of the educational institution/a Gazetted
Officer.
V. Certificate in support of candidates claim to belong to
a SC/ST/OBC.
VI. Relieving certificate from a previous employment, if
applicable.
VII. Two pass port size photographs. ”

The respondents also did not dispute these documents.
10. They have further attached as Annexure – R/2 the copy of
Annexure – A1, but along with that they have made available the
list of candidates called for interview (Mali). Clearly, 11 candidates
who had applied, responded to the public notice, otherwise eligible
were called for interview and from them the applicant was duly
selected and he was given the offer of appointment which is also
filed as Annexure – R/3 by the respondents. Further, the
respondents have filed Annexure – R/4, which is the joining letter
of the applicant dated 13.10.2006 which mentions that he had been
appointed as Mali on a consolidated pay of Rs.4,787/- per month
and that he had joined for his duties in the Centre as Mali with
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

17
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


effect from the forenoon on 13.10.2006. Further, the applicant has
filed part of Annexure – A2 (from page nos.17 to 27)
memorandums which have extended the dates of his appointment
on contract basis further with subject offer of appointment to Shri
Shrikant T. Suryavanshi for the post of Mali on contract basis
(consolidated salary). In the first document vide Ref
No.RMRC/BGM/509/138 dated 04.04.2007 (at page no. 17 of the
OA) mentions that the applicant is appointed on consolidated salary
of Rs.4,787/- with effect from 04.04.2007 and that the appointment
is purely on temporary basis and will not confer any title to a
permanent employment. Further, it mentions strangely, that the
appointment is on contract basis up to 89 days only. However, after
giving two working days break, depending upon his performance
his contract may be renewed. This condition is very strange and
under which provision of law, the respondents have imposed such
condition is not clear and they have not clarified the same.
11. Further, at page no.19, vide Ref No.RMRC/BGM/509/126
dated 01.04.2008 mentions that the services of the applicant is
extended with effect from 01.04.2008 and the same clause appears
in the said letter also that the appointment is purely temporary and
will not confer any title to a permanent employment and that the
appointment is on contract basis up to 89 days only. However, after
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

18
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


giving one/two working days break, his contract will be renewed
depending on his performance. Similar extensions are there vide
Ref No. RMRC/BGM/512/09-10/148 dated 02.04.2009 (at page
no.21 of the OA) with effect from 02.04.2009 with same conditions.
Similar extension is there vide Ref No.RMRC/BGM/10-11/515/130
dated 03.04.2010 with effect from 03.04.2010 with same terms and
conditions which is further repeated in Ref No.RMRC/BGM/10-
11/515/137 dated 02.04.2011 with effect from 02.04.2011 and Ref
No. RMRC/BGM/12-13/516/137 dated 03.04.2012 with effect from
03.04.2012. Clearly, the respondent department has gone on
extending the services of the applicant purportedly to be on contract
basis and purportedly reserving rights to the respondents to exploit
his vulnerability of contractual temporary employment by giving a
break after 89 days of one/two working days break, thus, making
the applicant completely subservient and dependent on the
respondents. This type of practice is clearly highly exploitative,
illegal and perverse and against any labour standards or reasonable
personnel policy. It may look similar to the practice of subservient
dependent bonded labour on a highly fragile one-sided and
unreasonable legal contract.
12. From the averments of the applicant as well as the
respondents, it is evident that this practice has continued of direct
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

19
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


contractual employment of the applicant from the year 2006 till the
year 2021, which is evident from the averments of the respondents
also (page no.4 of the reply statement) that Shri Shrikant T.
Suryavanshi was initially appointed as a Mali from 2006 to 2021,
with his contract being renewed periodically and only after that in
compliance with government directives, the institute engaged the
services of contractual staff through various contractors, and Shri
Shrikant continued his association with the institute under these
contracts from 2021 to 2025. It is strange that surreptitiously the
direct contract of the applicant which continued from 2006 to 2021
for 15 long years was unilaterally, without any due process of law
was changed to that of an indirect contract through a contractor,
although the work remained the same and it was without any doubt
a perennial nature of work of Mali in the Institute.
13. Under what provision of law, such discretion was exercised
by the respondents to change the nature of the long-standing
employment contract of the applicant have not been made clear by
the respondents. And clearly the said action of the respondents
looks exploitative, highly irregular, illegal, without the authority of
law and perverse. The said action unequivocally substantiated the
human resources exploitation of the applicant, exploiting his
vulnerability as he was less educated and lower grade employee.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

20
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


The respondents further tried to assert that it is pertinent to note that
as a contractual employee, Shri Shrikant T. Suryavanshi’s
relationship with the institute was governed by the terms and
conditions set forth in the contract, which explicitly defined the
temporary and non-permanent nature of his employment and that
during this period, Shri Shrikant was outsourced by various
contractors, and in accordance with the contractual arrangement, his
salary, benefits, and other terminal entitlements were provided by
the respective contractors, not by the institute directly and the
applicant was not entitled to any permanent status or rights
associated with regular employment, as his engagement was based
on the terms of the outsourcing agreements, which are legally
distinct from regular employment contracts and do not confer
entitlement to permanent employment, job security, or associated
benefits typically available to permanent employees under labour
laws. But under which labour law they have or an employer had a
right of shifting a long-term direct contractual employment to an
outsourced one is not explained. The respondents further failed to
explain as to which law provided them with discretion to practice
exploitative practice of causing break in service of contractual
employee for permanent nature of work uniformly, diligently and
satisfactorily being done for 15 long years. Hence, we do not
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

21
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


approve of any such unilateral, exploitative, illegal, arbitrary,
perverse and unfair change in the nature of contract of the
employment of the applicant at the whims and fancies of the
respondent department.
14. Further, Annexure – A3 vide Ref No.
RMRC/ICMR/BGM/14-15/476 dated 16.06.2014 is with reference
to applicant’s application for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff
(Technical) directing him to attend written examination on
18.07.2014 and as the applicant participated in the said regular
appointment in which some concessions were given in age
relaxation, etc. although as only 3 posts were available and the
applicant was not the first three in the Merit List, so, he could not
succeed, which fact is not disputed by either of the parties.
15. Annexure – A4 with ref No.ICMR-NITM/BGV/18-19/Est-
103/583 dated 03.09.2018 is another Office Memorandum of the
ICMR-National Institute of Traditional Medicine which mentions
that with reference to the applicant’s application for the post of Lab
Attendant-I (MTS), he is directed to attend the written test on
27.09.2018. The applicant appeared for this written test and as
asserted by the applicant, and agreed by the respondents he was the
successful candidate and he was the first in the Merit List and only
by then the rules for MTS had suddenly changed and age eligibility
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

22
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


had considerably altered. So, for appointing him there was a need
for relaxation of age for which a letter was addressed to the Director
General vide Ref No. ICMR-NITM/19-20/Est-103/228 dated
28.05.2019 (Annexure – A5), as the DG, ICMR had such plenary
powers to relax any rule, which inter alia other things mentions the
following:-

“ This is with reference to the ICMR letter dated
04/02/2019 received on 8th April 2019 in response to our
letter dt 14/01/2019 in regard to relaxation of age for
filling up the post of MTS at NITM Belgavi.
This is to bring to your kind notice that Mr.
Shrikant Suryavanshi was selected for appointment to the
post of Lab Attendant-1- (MTS) by the selection
committee in its meeting held on 28th September 2018.
Earlier, Mr. Suryavanshi was shortlisted to be called for
written exam by the screening committee constituted to
screen the applications and scored highest in the written
test.
Mr. Suryavanshi has been working at ICMR-NITM
(then RMRC) since 13/10/2006. (12 years) on contract
basis. He was recruited to the post through open
advertisement on direct recruitment basis at that time.
Although the post was filled up on contractual basis,
recruitment rules prevailing at the time were followed
during initial induction. In the RRs prevailing at 2006,
age was mentioned as 28 years, relaxable up to 40 years.
Since Mr. Suryavanshi was fulfilling a!! the requirements,
after conducting interviews by the selection committee
duly constituted by then DIC, on the recommendation of
the selection committee he was recruited to the post on
contract basis in 2006.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

23
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


Later in the year 2014, the DG, ICMR sanctioned 7
posts of MTS for NITM (then RMRC). The Council was
kind enough to grant permission to consider the
contractual staff for regular position keeping in mind the
period of service spent on contract basis giving age
relaxation. However due to insufficient number of
sanctioned hosts, Mr. Suryavanshi could not be
accommodated on regular basis at that time. Now since
one more post was transferred to the Institution in the
year 2018, the post was advertised according to the
revised RRs introduced by the Council. Though Mr.
Suryavanshi fulfils the educational qualification required
for the post, on the date of advertisement he was over age
according to the revised RRs. It is necessary to mention
here that Mr Suryavanshi was within the age limit at the
time of initial induction on contract basis, as per the RR
prevailing at that time.
The Council has further mentioned in its letter of
4th February 2019 that “the DIC, if necessary, may take
fresh view in the matter being the Appointing Authority,
to fill up the post through screening process as allowed
earlier to regularise the service of other contractual
staff.”
As we have already followed the required
procedure such as screening of applications, conducting
written exam and placing all documents before the
selection committee etc. as earlier, it would be injustice
on the part of ICMR and NITM if such relaxation is
denied to Mr Suryavanshi as he has been working on
contract basis for quite a long period.
In view of this, as per the new RR-2017, only DG is
empowered to relax the age and other criteria in such
cases under Rules No. 12 and 14. Therefore, the DIC and
the appointing authority in this case, strongly
recommends to the DG, ICMR to consider this case
sympathetically and relax the age for providing the
natural justice to Mr. Suryavanshi.”

Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

24
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


Closer scrutiny of this document shows that due to insufficient
number of sanctioned posts, the applicant could not be
accommodated on regular basis in 2014 and that in 2018 one more
post was transferred to the institution and the said post was
advertised according to the revised Recruitment Rules introduced
by the Council and that the applicant fulfilled the educational
qualification required for the post on the date of advertisement, but
however he was over age according to the revised RRs. It is
necessary to mention here that Shri Suryakant T. Suryavanshi – the
applicant was within the age limit at the time of initial induction on
contract basis in 2006 as the records clearly substantiated, as per the
RR prevailing at that time and as DG had power to relax any of the
rules, the Director-In-Charge had requested and strongly
recommended to the DG, ICMR to consider the case
sympathetically and relax the age for providing the natural justice to
the applicant. This document is not disputed by the other side and
they fully agree that, yes, in 2018 recruitment, the applicant was
found to be the best suited candidate but he could not be
immediately accommodated as he was over age by then. He had
long 12 years of service by then and so the Director of the local
Institute had referred his case to the Director General, ICMR for
relaxing the age criteria for him on sympathetic basis.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

25
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


16. Further, follow up was done through the letter with Ref No.
ICMR-NITM/19-20/Est-103/1102 (at pg no. 33) (Annexure – A6)
dated 17.12.2019 with the subject Recruitment to the post of Lab
Attendant-I (MTS) Unreserved, wherein the following was
mentioned:-
“Your kind attention is invited to my letter No. ICMR-
NITM/19-20/Est-103/678 dated: 26/09/2019, copy
enclosed for ready reference. The matter is pending for a
quite a long period. I request you kindly arrange to issue
approval for the selection of Mr. Srikanth Suryavanshi to
the post of MTS at ICMR – National Institute of
Traditional Medicine, Belagavi.”

It is said and agreed by both the parties that no decision till
now on the matter has been taken. The respondents have not denied
that no further decision has been taken on this. However, they say
that there is no vacant post now, although no details are furnished
before us. The respondents have also filed that 2014 advertisement
in No. 52/2008/Misc/RMRC/Bel dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure –
R/7), wherein it is mentioned in the facing sheet itself that age
relaxation to the existing staff may be allowed to the extent of
period of time actually served in RMRC on contract basis. Further,
in the instructions inter alia other things it is mentioned that
candidates working on a long-term projects in ICMR
Institutes/Centres will be given one-time age relaxation provided
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

26
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


they meet essential qualification and experience for the post with a
view to provide them an opportunity to compete with other
candidates and age relaxations will be granted as per Government
of India norms. In that particular selection age relaxations were
given and as only three posts were there and the applicant could not
find his name as the first three candidates as evident in Annexure –
R/14 (at page no.143), he was not selected.
17. Further, the respondents have produced as Annexure – R/23
ICMR MTS Cadre Post Rules, 2012 which inter alia other things at
para 12 mentions power to relax:-
“ 12. Power to relax
Where the DG, ICMR is of the opinion that it is
necessary or expedient to do so, he may, by order, for
reasons to be recorded in writing relax any of the
provisions of these rules in respect of any class or
category of persons.”

Clearly, the DG, ICMR had powers to relax rules, particularly,
the age and in conformity with the earlier stipulation in the 2014
Recruitment dated 31.01.2014 wherein Annexure – R/7 it was
mentioned age relaxation to the existing staff may be allowed to the
extent of period of time actually served in RMRC on contract basis.
The applicant should have also been given the same concession and
his selection should have been thoroughly approved in the cadre of
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

27
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


MTS for which he was selected and recommended by the Selection
Committee and also further recommended by the Director of the
Institute for relaxing the said rule. Further, the applicant has
produced as Annexure – A7, a certificate of recommendation in his
name as Covid-19 Warrior and from Central Vigilance
Commission, a certificate of commitment to uphold highest
standards of honesty and integrity, and to follow probity and rule of
law in all walks of life.
18. Further, Annexure – A9 dated 14.03.2018 Ref No.ICMR-
NITM/BGV/17-18/667 is an experience certificate which certifies
that the applicant had been working as Mali in the Institute on
contract basis on consolidated salary from 13.10.2006 onwards with
certain breaks in between. Further, as Annexure – A10 has been
filed for revision of consolidated salary to the staff appointed up to
15.02.2013 on Ad-hoc extramural research schemes/projects funded
by ICMR and Annexure – A11 is the Statement of Account from
Canara Bank of the applicant which shows payments made to the
applicant by the department and till 2021 it was direct payment
from the Institute as direct contractual worker and further indirectly
through the contractor. These documents are not disputed.
19. Annexure – A12 vide No.16/8/2017-Admn-II dated
10.11.2017 is ICMR Technical Cadre Integrated Recruitment and
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

28
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


Assessment Rules, 2017 which inter alia other things mentions age
relaxation as following:-

“ 12. Age relaxation
The crucial date to determine the age in case of direct
recruitment shall be the last date of receipt of application.
Age is relaxable for SC/ST/OBC/PWD/Ex. Servicemen
candidates and for Government Servants in accordance with
the instructions issued by the DOP&T from time to time in
this regard. Person working in ICMR projects continuously
shall also be eligible for age relaxation upto five years
provided he/she has entered into project service within
prescribed age limit for the post.”

For the purpose of this Rule, some delegation from the
Director General was done which is as per Annexure – A13 dated
17.11.2023 vide No.16/8/2017-Admn.II (Part)E/office-169759:-

“ Office Memorandum
Subject:- ICMR Technical Cadre Integrated
Recruitment and Assessment Rules, 2017 – Age
relaxation for project staff.
In view of the representations received from persons
engaged in ICMR Projects at ICMR Institutes/Centres,
the Directors/Director in Charges of ICMR
Institutes/Centres are permitted to consider the cases of
age relaxation for project staff applying in response to
advertisements for regular technical vacancies published
by ICMR Institutes/Centres, strictly under the provisions
of Rule 12 of ICMR IRARs, 2017. On final selection, the
Directors may send individual proposals to ICMR Hqs of
the approval of DG, ICMR.”

Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

29
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


These documents are not denied. Clearly, there were some
powers with the local Director also to relax the age in certain
manner but as observed in 2012 Recruitment Rules by which the
applicant was governed, the Director General had full powers to
relax recording any reason. In such circumstances the pertinent
question will be, if the DG, ICMR having such discretion to relax
any rule in a truly deserving case, has he option not to act and not to
take a decision on the matter of relaxation for a prolonged five to
seven years? We will further discuss this subsequently.
20. Annexure – A14 is a request letter of the applicant for
giving him permanent job which alluded him even after long years
of satisfactory service. Annexure – A15 is the order of the High
Court. The applicant not knowing where to go first went and filed
his case at the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in
Writ Petition No. 102313/2021 (S-RES). On 17.01.2022, based on
his request, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn as applicant
says that the respondents had assured him for some positive action,
but in spite of his follow-up through Annexure – A16 dated
11.12.2024 with subject request to re-consider his candidature for
permanent position at ICMR-NITM, Belagavi, the applicant did not
get any positive response and finally through the contractor his
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

30
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


services were unceremoniously dispensed with in 2025, which is
not disputed by the respondents.
21. From the submissions of the parties and the above
documents which we have just now examined, it is evident that the
applicant did not join the public employment of the respondent
department by backdoor. There was a public notice in the New
Indian Express of a vacancy which was although labelled as
temporary and contractual to which the applicant had also applied
and along with him, 10 others were called for interview and after
due interview and verification of his qualification, age, experience,
caste, he was duly selected as the successful candidate and was
offered the job. Although it was mentioned that the appointment
was purely temporary and will not confer any title to a permanent
employment and that the contract will be till March, 2007 from
09.10.2006, depending on his performance. However, from the
record it is evident that he had been continued as such vide various
orders of the respondents till 2021 on contractual basis
substantiating that he was in a work of perennial nature and his
work being satisfactory and useful to the respondent department.
22. Now, the question is how we can account the conduct of the
respondent employers who have overwhelming power over the
employees who are less educated and who are at the tethers due to
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

31
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


their contrived, artfully designed temporary contractual
employment. To label and design any post as “temporary” although
as from their very conduct and practice, it is evident that the said
work of Mali continued perennially and perpetually year after year
and the applicant kept on performing his duty diligently and
satisfactorily as otherwise as per contract itself his services would
have been terminated anytime earlier. There is no iota murmur from
the respondents’ side that the applicant’s work was not satisfactory.
It was very much satisfactory that is why his work was continued
and the work which he performed of the Mali in the Institution was
definitely not purely temporary, it was a perennial work which the
applicant diligently performed year after year. We unequivocally
find that such practice was perverse ab initio in the advertisement
for the post to say that it is a temporary post and that it will be on
contractual basis when after open advertisement to all contenders in
rem the public notice was given in a widely circulated newspaper
the New Indian Express and after due diligence and interview, the
applicant was duly selected. His appointment was very much legal
and regular through constitutionally recognized open competition
and was an unmistakable front door entry, although in the
newspaper it was shown as purely temporary and craftily and
perversely saying that it will not confer any title to a permanent
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

32
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


employment. It is strange that the first offer of appointment did not
mention certain things which subsequent ones from 04.04.2007
onwards kept on mentioning that the appointment is on contract
basis up to 89 days only. However, after giving two working days
break depending on the performance, the contract may be renewed.
This is an atrocious, illegal, perverse, exploitative labour practice
and personnel policy which no labour law or service law may
permit when the work was of perennial nature. Such practices
amount to ensnaring unsuspecting worker in to serfdom, bondage
and unmistakably exploitative employment relationship. If posts
were not available for a truly perennial nature of work, the
respondent department should have created a permanent posts and
then appointed persons formally, otherwise it may look that to
exploit the vulnerability of impermanence of the post and to keep
the applicant on tethers and under complete control and bondage
these conditions were put that every 89 days the person’s work will
be broken so that there is no continuity in service, however,
obviously, as depending upon performance, his contract has been
renewed from 2006 to 2021 as has been agreed by the respondents
themselves in their reply statement. The applicant as a matter of
facts and record was doing perennial job and he was not in purely
temporary employment. It was a long-term employment of 15
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

33
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


years, which is almost half working life of an average public
employee. Such sub-human practices cannot be accepted from any
point of view, i.e. labour laws, personnel policy, human resource
development policy, human rights or right based jurisprudence.
23. In the case of the applicant in this particular case, the
respondent’s document Annexure – R/1 clearly shows that for Mali,
one temporary post which they were telling was actually not
temporary in nature but a long-term perennial post and for which
th
essential qualification was 5 pass with rural/agricultural
background with 2 years’ experience in gardening at a reputed
organisation and age 28 years relaxable up to 40 years and clearly
all those requirements were verified and based on his credentials,
his certificate of educational qualification, certificate of age,
character certificates, certificates supporting his caste and fitness
certificates, etc. the applicant was selected and offered the job and
was continued from 2006 to 2025. The intentional break in service
of one/two days, every 89 days or so, which act of the respondents
looks very unfair and illegitimate labour practice as applicant being
less educated from a weaker section of the society, a bread earner of
the family but could not fully understand his own exploitative
employer-employee relationship. The applicant was intentionally
shown to be on contract basis on a purported to be a temporary post
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

34
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


from 2005 to 2021 which fact itself disproves that it was a short-
term temporary work on which he was employed. His performance
was satisfactory, his employment contracts were renewed from time
to time and the applicant due to his innocence and less knowledge
was forced to accept an unequal contract with technical break of
service of one to two days. After his due selection through
constitutional front gate of exercising a due process of selection
through calling applications through newspaper advertisement and
selecting him by interview, and after verifying all his credentials
forcing him to have contractual service against perennial nature of
work and a vacant post having eligibility conditions and with
satisfactory work continuing him year after year appears to be
highly exploitative, illegitimate and arbitrary and perverse labour
practice of the respondents and degenerate and de-humanised
personnel policy.
24. Clearly, the applicant had been doing perennial nature of
work satisfactorily and due diligently. The document presented
before us clearly shows that the respondents had least respect for
labour laws and employers’ responsibility towards the weakest and
the most vulnerable sections of the society and particularly lowest
and most vulnerable employees (Group ‘D’), MTS, etc. Hence, we
find the conduct of the respondents forcing the applicant in an
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

35
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


unequal contract between a lion and a lamb forced the applicant to
accept fixed term temporary contract even after due selection
against vacant post and having prescribed eligibility for the said
post and the respondents intentionally, illegally and arbitrarily
caused repeated breaks of service to ensure the applicant does not
reap the long-term benefit of employment and obtain his rightful
social securities and other legitimate employment benefits. And
subsequently most unfortunately and sinisterly and without giving
due notice and following any due procedure in 2021, the
respondents changed the terms of employment contract of the
applicant from direct contract temporary appointment to that of
outsourced appointment through a contractor, on which the
applicant continued from 2021 to 2025 as per records as well as
facts agreed by both the parties. Clearly, the respondents were
practicing and perpetrating unfair and illegitimate labour practice
with the applicant much more perversely after 2021 when suddenly
they changed his direct fixed term contractual service through an
outsourcing agency and continuing him till 2025 as an outsourced
person, although continuing in his old work which he had been
performing in the Institution since 2006.
25. It is not clear under what provision of law the applicant was
discontinued by the respondents through the outsource agency, if
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

36
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


the work still exists in the same nature and considering the 15 years
of experience of the applicant, in any such situation even in
outsource contractual employment last come, first go is the case if
work is less, if work continues new set of contractual employees
cannot replace the old set of contractual employees if their work
was satisfactory. We have not been shown any such facts or
documents which may shed light that applicant’s work was not up
to the mark till 2025 and so he was discontinued from service. From
the placed documents, his work was very much satisfactory that is
why he was continued from 2006 to 2025 and from the
circumstantial evidence before us, the only conclusion can be that
the respondent department along with their contractors who are
their mere agents only and they are the Principal, they intentionally
removed the applicant because he had come to judicial forum
asking for his rights, as asserted by the applicant. We find the
conduct of the respondents throughout from 2006 to 2025 as well as
beyond to be highly illegal, arbitrary, questionable and
disproportionate and perverse.
26. We have further examined the case of the applicant
participating in the 2014 Recruitment process where the
respondents did not consider the applicant because his position was
fourth in the Merit List and he did not become successful as three
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

37
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


other candidates were selected against the three vacancies and in
2018, when another vacancy came he was selected as the best
available candidate fulfilling all the eligibility conditions.
Correspondences between the Director of the Institute and the DG,
ICMR remained inconclusive, the applicant was selected and there
was rule to relax his age which was within the purview of the DG
but he did not take the decision in time. In such unusual
circumstances of the applicant where he had been working in a
perennial nature of work from 2006 till 2018 when his selection
actually happened under MTS under new Rules of 2012, he had
already performed 12 years of meritorious service. He had all
credentials to get relaxation of age (as was provided to other
candidates in the earlier round of employment) if he was otherwise
qualified. From all the documents placed before us and agreed by
both the parties, the applicant had all credentials and he was a
successful candidate in 2018 selection. We are of the opinion that
Director General had no such discretion not to exercise his vested
discretion and relax the rules, i.e., age, etc. in a case of such
meritorious candidate, who had been diligently helping the
respondent Institution and discharging his duties for 12 long years.
Such discretion in the rules have to be exercised diligently and
should generally be in favour of the employees who have been
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

38
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


working diligently otherwise the employers conduct may look
exploitative and perverse.
27. Rule 12 is very clear power to relax where the DG, ICMR is
of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, he may, by
order, for reasons to be recorded in writing relax any of the
provisions of these rules in respect of any class or category of
persons. The exercise of these powers cannot be arbitrary and for a
meritorious case which the facts of this case substantiated that the
case of the applicant was exceptionally meritorious to get this age
relaxation as he had been diligently working for the Institution.
Hence, non-exercise of this power to relax age criteria by the
Director General in spite of recommendation from the Director was
highly perverse and non-meritorious, and an arbitrary non-use of
discretion. These powers of relaxation were very wide giving
plenary power to Director General, any condition for a person who
had been continuously serving for 12 years, if the power is not
exercised, it is failure of justice, discretion and perverse
perpetuation of exploitative employer-employee relationship.
Hence, in our considered opinion in 2018-19, the department did
great injustice to the applicant by not relaxing one-time eligibility
condition i.e., the age and not considering his long-term regular
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

39
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


meritorious and continuous service and give him employment as
regular MTS.
28. We have considered the case of the applicant on the basis of
leading Hon’ble Supreme Court case of Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
(DD: 10.04.2006), where para 53 is pertinent which mentions the
following: -

“ 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V.
NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra),
and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in
paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more
but without the intervention of orders of courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of
such employees may have to be considered on merits in
the light of the principles settled by this Court in the
cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment.
In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments
and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize
as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts
or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular
recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant
sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases
where temporary employees or daily wagers are being
now employed. The process must be set in motion within
six months from this date. We also clarify that
regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice,
need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

40
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


should be no further by-passing of the constitutional
requirement and regularizing or making permanent,
those not duly appointed as per the constitutional
scheme. ”

Closer look at para 53 and considering the facts in the case of
the applicant shows that the applicant’s case is the case of duly
qualified person as Mali whose application was called through a
due open process through the newspaper publication (The New
Indian Express) against duly sanctioned vacant post of Mali
labelled as temporary and contractual and he was continued in work
from 2006 and without any intervention of orders of any Court or
Tribunal although the respondents, only giving intentional and
illegal technical breaks (1 to 2 days) after 89 days of service, a
break of few days technically was most illegitimate, perverse and
pernicious practice, and not showing him any due consideration for
his long satisfactory service goes against the grain of the above
Hon’ble Apex Court judgment. Hence, in our considered opinion,
the selection and appointment of the applicant in 2006 cannot be
said to be unconstitutional or illegal. It cannot even be said to be
irregular. It was a regular appointment given a colour of direct fixed
term contract whereas vacant post and perennial nature of work
existed and the respondent department had exercised due diligence
in calling open applications through the newspaper publication from
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

41
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


the eligible unemployed persons and the applicant was subjected to
a selection process and interview and his eligibility, educational
qualification, caste and other credentials were duly verified by the
respondents before he was selected, and offered appointment and
taken on duty and he diligently worked in spite of all odds and due
to his lack of complete knowledge and unequal power was forced to
accept unequal and unjust terms of employment. Having direct
contract and technical breaks in service from 2006 to 2021 and then
shifting him in 2021 without due process and sufficient reason to an
outsource agency and in 2025 discharging him from outsource
agency without due process also to dispose him unceremoniously to
avoid discharging the burden of employer’s long term employment
responsibilities towards the weakest employee. In his case, the
injunction of ‘Umadevi’ (supra) was to take steps to regularise as a
one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, in this
case regularly appointed, who have worked for 10 years or more in
duly sanctioned posts by not under the cover of orders of the courts
or tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are
being now employed may ring hollow, that in spite of the said order
of the Apex Court, the applicant was continued between 2006 to
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

42
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


2025, 19 long years and his long meritorious years of service not
being respected. Hence, the case of the applicant is one of the rarest
of the rare one and the applicant cannot be slaughtered at the altar
of constitutionality, legality, lack of law, lack of scheme or any
other argument whatsoever, and deprived of the social securities
and other service benefits and the legitimate fruits of his long-term
meritorious and selfless service. Hence, in our considered opinion
the applicant’s case fits the injunctions of the ‘Umadevi’ case much
more than any other case as his selection was through a
constitutional open method of calling applications through
newspaper, selection and verifying all his credentials before
offering him a job and he continued in service for more than 19
years of uninterrupted meritorious service in a perennial nature of
work and against a vacant post of Mali. Hence, in our considered
opinion, the applicant should have been given the benefit of
relaxation of age in 2018 which decision by the respondents have
till now been erroneously not taken.
29. We have examined this case with reference to other cases
like Vinod Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others in
Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-54/2024 decided by the Hon’ble Apex
Court on 30.01.2024, (2024) 9 SCC 327 wherein in a similar rare
case, the Hon’ble Court had observed and ruled the following:-
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

43
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE



“7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal”
appointments underscoring the importance of considering
certain appointments even if were not made strictly in
accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure,
cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had
followed the procedures of regular appointments such as
conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the
present case. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case
is reproduced hereunder:

“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa
[(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N.
Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR
799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980
SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in
para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and
the employees have continued to work for ten years
or more but without the intervention of orders of the
courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation
of the services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the principles
settled by this Court in the cases above referred to
and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the
Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a
one-time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more
in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of
orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that
require to be filled up, in cases where temporary
employees or daily wagers are being now employed.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

44
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


The process must be set in motion within six months
from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there should
be no further bypassing of the constitutional
requirement and regularising or making permanent,
those not duly appointed as per the constitutional
scheme.”

8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds
merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their
service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a
reclassification from temporary to regular status. The
failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles
and their continuous service akin to permanent
employees runs counter to the principles of equity,
fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of
the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are
entitled to be considered for regularization in their
respective posts. The respondents are directed to
complete the process of regularization within 3 months
from the date of service of this judgment.
10. No order as to costs.”

This case strongly supports the case of the applicant, who has
much better credentials for regularization or giving him age
relaxation benefits.
30. We have further seen the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders
in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others vs. State of Jharkhand
and others in Civil Appeal Nos.7423-29/2018 decided on
01.08.2018, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 . Inter alia other things in
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

45
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


the said case also, regularization and entitlement to regularisation of
daily wagers, contractual employees benefit of 2015 Regularisation
Rules to employees who had not completed 10 years of service on
cut-off date of 10.04.2006 on ground that the same was not
permitted by Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court did not accept the department’s arguments. We find that this
citation also supports the case of the applicant.
31. Further, these issues are dealt in more detail in Shripal and
another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No.
8157/2024 with Civil Appeal Nos. 8158-8179/2024 decided on
31.01.2025 in the Hon’ble Apex Court cited in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 221 , in which the Court went into the details of continuous
service and comparable duties, direct engagement and wage
disbursement, illegal termination, entitlement to reinstatement and
regularization, compliance with Constitutional requirements, no
direct employer-employee relationship, inapplicability of
regularization, inadequate proof of 240 days service, etc. of the
respondents’ arguments and after considering them in detail, have
not accepted the department’s arguments. The Hon’ble Court
observed:-

Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

46
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


“12. The evidence, including documentary material and
undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen
performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer’s
municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks,
horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such
work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or
project-based. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh
recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to
longserving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged
shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam
reinforces the notion that these positions are essential
and ongoing, not intermittent.
13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning,
general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from
regular Gardeners but still compensating them
inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer
has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The
principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly
emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded
when workers have served for extended periods in roles
resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing
assignments under the Employer’s direct supervision
belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual
engagements. 14. The Respondent Employer places
reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage
or temporary employees cannot claim permanent
absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing
such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma
Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are
“illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being
eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions.
More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to
justify exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.
Given the record which shows no true contractorbased
arrangement and a consistent need for permanent
horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

47
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


wage status or continued unfair practices. 15. It is
manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously
rendered their services over several years, sometimes
spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls
were not produced in full, the Employer’s failure to
furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows
an adverse inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing
municipal requirements year after year cannot be
dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the
absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this
juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader
critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices
as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v.
Union of India3 in the following paragraphs:

“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects
workers' rights and job security. In the private
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an
increase in precarious employment arrangements,
often characterized by lack of benefits, job security,
and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining
labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted
with upholding the principles of fairness and justice,
bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public
sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a
concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations. ……… 25. It is a
disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

48
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


particularly in government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may
have been to address short-term or seasonal needs,
they have increasingly become a mechanism to
evade long-term obligations owed to employees.
These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are often
labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even
when their roles mirror those of regular employees.
Such misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing
identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen
in the present case. This practice undermines the
principles of natural justice and subjects workers to
a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the
quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees
often find themselves excluded from opportunities
for skill development, promotions, or incremental
pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their contributions
being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed
by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This practice
not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

49
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.”

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s
inability to justify these abrupt terminations.
Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages
with some measure of parity in minimum pay.
Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the
Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved
yet still uncertain status. While the High Court
recognized the importance of their work and hinted at
eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity
of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with
the degree of statutory violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s
discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in
violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it
is established that their services were terminated without
adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in
essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be
relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of
municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules
merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the
Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable
entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot
trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended
period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent
they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage
engagement without continuity or meaningful back
wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

50
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s
services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and
Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
declared illegal. All orders or communications
terminating their services are quashed. In consequence,
the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in
service from the date of their termination, for all
purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant
Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the
duties they previously performed) within four weeks from
the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence
(from the date of termination until actual reinstatement)
shall be counted for continuity of service and all
consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility
for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant
Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from
the date of their discontinuation until their actual
reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the
aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their
reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair
and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant
Workmen within six months from the date of
reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have
performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent
posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not
impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if
such requirements were never applied to the Appellant
Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in
the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such
duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer
shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to
ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely
retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and
equitable norms.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

51
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the
workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the
Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of. No orders
as to costs.”

This citation, we are of the opinion strongly supports the case
of the applicant.
32. Further, in another recent case in Bhola Nath vs. State of
Jharkhand and others in Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of
SLP (Civil) No.30762/2024) decided on 30.01.2026 by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court cited in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129 , the Hon’ble
Court has dealt with that case extensively on the Umadevi and other
rulings: -
“ ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT:
8. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellants
and learned counsel for the respondents, the following
issues arise for our consideration: -
I. Whether the judgments passed by the High Court
warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India?
II. Whether the action/inaction of the respondentState in
not recognizing the appellants’ continuous service for the
purpose of regularization is arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
ISSUE I. Whether the judgments passed by the High
Court warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India?
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

52
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


9. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench, in the intra-Court appeals, have rejected the claim
of the appellants seeking regularization. We are
conscious that the appellants are assailing concurrent
findings of the High Court; nevertheless, the scope and
ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution stands well settled by a catena of decisions
of this Court.
9.1. Article 136 of the Constitution confers upon this
Court a plenary and discretionary power to entertain
appeals against any judgment, decree, determination,
sentence or order passed or made by any court or
tribunal within the territory of India. The only limitation
on this power is contained in Article 136(2), which
excludes decisions of tribunals constituted by or under
any law relating to the Armed Forces. The non obstante
clause, namely the expression “notwithstanding anything
in this Chapter”, accords overriding effect to the power
vested in this Court under Article 136 over the other
provisions contained in the preceding and succeeding
Articles of this Chapter.
9.2. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that this Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution, is competent to interfere with concurrent
findings of the High Court where such findings are shown
to be perverse, rendered in violation of the principles of
natural justice or in disregard of statutory provisions, or
where the operation of the impugned judgment would
result in substantial and grave injustice. In this context, it
is apposite to refer to the three-Judge Bench decision of
this Court in Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan , 4
wherein it was held as follows: -

“43. Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a
discretionary remedy. (See Champalal Binani v. CIT
[(1971) 3 SCC 20].) The High Court and
consequently this Court while exercising their
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

53
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


of the Constitution of India may not strike down an
illegal order although it would be lawful to do so.
In a given case, the High Court or this Court may
refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief
to the applicant. Furthermore, this Court exercised
its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India which need not be
exercised in a case where the impugned judgment
is found to be erroneous if by reason thereof
substantial justice is being done. [See S.D.S.
Shipping (P) Ltd. v. Jay Container Services Co. (P)
Ltd. [(2003) 4 Supreme 44]] Such a relief can be
denied, inter alia, when it would be opposed to
public policy or in a case where quashing of an
illegal order would revive another illegal one. This
Court also in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India is entitled to
pass such order which will do [Corrected as per
Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed. B.J./11/2004
dated 27-1- 2004] complete justice to the parties.
…
45. This Court said that this principle applies to all
kinds of appeals admitted by special leave under
Article 136, irrespective of the nature of the subject-
matter. So even after the appeal is admitted and
special leave is granted, the appellants must show
that exceptional and special circumstances exist,
and that, if there is no interference, substantial and
grave injustice will result and that the case has
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of
the decision appealed against on merits. So this
Court may declare the law or point out the lower
court's error, still it may not interfere if special
circumstances are not shown to exist and the justice
of the case on facts does not require interference or
if it feels the relief could be moulded in a different
fashion.”
(emphasis laid)
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

54
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE



It therefore follows that an appellant must demonstrate
the existence of exceptional and special circumstances
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution; failing
which, interference would be declined unless non-
interference is likely to result in substantial or grave
injustice.
9.3. In the present case, the respondent-State has
engaged the services of the appellants for a period
exceeding 10 years. Upon completion of this long tenure,
the respondents, as apprehended by the appellants,
declined to grant any further extension on the ground that
the engagement was contractual in nature. Such a
decision necessarily warrants examination on the
touchstone of the equality principles enshrined in the
Constitution, which obligate the State to act as a model
employer and to take decisions free from arbitrariness. In
our consideration of the second issue, we shall examine
whether non-interference with the impugned judgments
would result in substantial and grave injustice to the
appellants.
ISSUE II . Whether the action/inaction of the respondent-
State in not recognizing the appellants’ continuous
service for the purpose of regularization is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
10. The learned Single Judge, vide common order,
dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants seeking
a writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to
regularize their services. In doing so, the writ Court
placed reliance on the terms and conditions of the
employment agreement entered into between the
appellants and the respondents. The learned Single
Judge, in this regard, recorded the following findings: -
i. The appellants were appointed on a purely contractual
basis pursuant to a decision of the Finance Department
to fill 22 sanctioned posts through contractual
engagement, the expenditure being met from non-plan
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

55
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


funds. Following issuance of an advertisement and
completion of the selection process, the appellants were
appointed by entering into contracts of employment for
an initial period of one year, extendable from time to time
for fixed durations.
ii. The appellants were granted extensions periodically,
with the last extensions having been issued in the year
2023 as a one-time measure. The respondent-State
treated the said decision as a conscious policy
determination, which, according to the learned Single
Judge, did not warrant interference by the Court.
iii. The appellants were held not entitled to regularization
under the regularization scheme framed by the
respondent-State in the year 2015, as modified in 2019,
which prescribed completion of ten years of continuous
service as on the cut-off year 2019. It was further noted
that the appellants had not laid any challenge to the
validity of the said regularization scheme.
iv. Since the appellants were appointed on a contractual
basis and continued only through periodic extensions, it
was held that they did not possess any statutory or legal
right to continue in service once the contractual period,
including its extensions, came to an end.
v. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the appellants were
fully aware, and were put to notice on each occasion of
renewal, that their engagement was contractual and
limited to a specified tenure. In view thereof, the learned
Single Judge held that no question of legitimate
expectation or enforceable right to renewal or
regularization could arise, nor could any right be said to
have crystallised in their favour.
vi. It was further noted that the appellants had not been
replaced by another set of contractual employees. On the
contrary, the material on record indicated that the
respondent-State had undertaken regular recruitment and
appointed nine persons as regular employees through a
fresh advertisement.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

56
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


10.1. Aggrieved by the decision of the writ Court, the
appellants preferred intra-Court appeals before the High
Court. The learned Division Bench upheld the judgment
of the writ Court and recorded the following findings: -
i. The law relating to regularization or absorption of
contractual employees was held to be well settled, namely
that such employees are governed by the terms and
conditions of their engagement, the relationship being
founded upon a bilateral contract between the employee
and the employer.
ii. It was further held that the terms and conditions of a
contract cannot be altered, nor can new conditions be
introduced, by issuance of judicial directions, as doing so
would amount to impermissible re-writing of the contract.
Once the parties have consciously entered into
contractual terms, they cannot subsequently resile
therefrom or question those conditions.
State as model employer: -
11. At the outset, we find it necessary to express our
disapproval of the manner in which the High Court has
approached the present lis. The controversy before the
Court was not one of mere acquiescence or implied
waiver of rights. The High Court, in our view, has
proceeded on a mechanical application of precedents
without engaging with the core constitutional issues
involved, thereby reducing the dispute to one of
acceptance of contractual terms, divorced from its larger
constitutional context.
11.1. This Court has consistently held that the State,
being a model employer, is saddled with a heightened
obligation in the discharge of its functions. A model
employer is expected to act with high probity, fairness
and candour, and bears a social responsibility to treat its
employees in a manner that preserves their dignity. The
State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to
take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness or
unequal bargaining position.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

57
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


11.2. It therefore follows that the State is required to
exercise heightened caution in its role as an employer,
the constitutional mandate casting upon it a strict
obligation to act as a model employer, an obligation from
which no exception can be countenanced.
Fundamental Rights and their waiver:
11.3. In the present case, the appellants were appointed
by the respondent-State against sanctioned posts of
Junior Engineers (Agriculture), with the engagement
being described from the inception as contractual in
nature. The terms and conditions governing the
engagement stipulated that the appointment would be for
an initial period of one year, extendable thereafter
subject to satisfactory performance.
11.4. The respondent-State accordingly granted
extensions to the appellants from time to time until the
year 2023, when it was expressly clarified that the
extension being granted would be the last. It was
thereafter that the appellants approached the High Court
by filing writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the State to regularize their services.
11.5. The consistent case of the appellants has been that
the respondent-State’s refusal to grant regularization is
arbitrary and therefore warrants judicial interference.
Article 14 of the Constitution casts a negative obligation
upon the State to treat all persons equally, and
arbitrariness, being antithetical to the equality principle,
is proscribed as violative of Article 14.
11.6. The Constitution Bench in Basheshar Nath v.
Comm. Income Tax, 5 long ago clarified that fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Constitution are incapable of
waiver. Consequently, if the action of the respondent-
State is found to be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution, the mere fact that the appellants’
engagement was governed by contractual terms and
conditions cannot be construed as a waiver of their
fundamental rights.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

58
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


Unconscionable Agreements- Contract between Lion
and Lamb:
12. In Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo
Nath Ganguly, 6 this Court acknowledged the increasing
imbalance in the bargaining power of contracting parties.
The Court held thus:-

“89. . . . We have a Constitution for our country.
Our judges are bound by their oath to “uphold the
Constitution and the laws”. The Constitution was
enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country
social and economic justice. Article 14 of the
Constitution guarantees to all persons equality
before the law and the equal protection of the laws.
The principle deducible from the above discussions
on this part of the case is in consonance with right
and reason, intended to secure social and economic
justice and conforms to the mandate of the great
equality clause in Article 14. This principle is that
the courts will not enforce and will, when called
upon to do so, strike down an unfair and
unreasonable contract, or an unfair and
unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into
between parties who are not equal in bargaining
power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all
bargains of this type. No court can visualize the
different situations which can arise in the affairs of
men. One can only attempt to give some
illustrations. For instance, the above principle will
apply where the inequality of bargaining power is
the result of the great disparity in the economic
strength of the contracting parties. It will apply
where the inequality is the result of circumstances,
whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will
apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a
position in which he can obtain goods or services
or means of livelihood only upon the terms
imposed by the stronger party or go without them.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

59
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


It will also apply where a man has no choice, or
rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent
to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a
prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of
rules as part of the contract, however unfair,
unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that
contract or form or rules may be. This principle,
however, will not apply where the bargaining power
of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal.
This principle may not apply where both parties are
businessmen and the contract is a commercial
transaction. In today's complex world of giant
corporations with their vast infrastructural
organizations and with the State through its
instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost
every branch of industry and commerce, there can
be myriad situations which result in unfair and
unreasonable bargains between parties possessing
wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining
power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor
fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on
its own facts and circumstances.” (emphasis laid)

Therefore, the Court has held that the Constitution
obliges courts to advance social and economic justice
and to give effect to the equality mandate under Article
14. Consequently, courts will neither enforce nor hesitate
to invalidate contracts, or contractual clauses, that are
unfair or unreasonable when entered into between parties
with unequal bargaining power.
12.1. Relying on the aforesaid reasoning, another
twoJudge Bench in Pani Ram v. Union of India,
reiterated that the guarantee of equality under Article 14
extends even to situations where a person has no
meaningful choice but to accept imposed contractual
terms, however unfair or unreasonable they may be.
Applying this principle to the facts before it, the Court
observed thus: -
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

60
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE



“23. As held by this Court, a right to equality
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India would also apply to a man who has no choice
or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his
assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in
a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of
rules as part of the contract, however unfair,
unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that
contract or form or rules may be. We find that the
said observations rightly apply to the facts of the
present case. Can it be said that the mighty Union of
India and an ordinary soldier, who having fought for
the country and retired from Regular Army, seeking
re-employment in the Territorial Army, have an
equal bargaining power. We are therefore of the
considered view that the reliance placed on the said
document would also be of no assistance to the case
of the respondents.”
(emphasis laid)

Therefore, it is clear that Courts are empowered to
invalidate unconscionable elements of a contract where
the parties lack the ability to exercise any real or
meaningful choice in negotiating its terms. In the present
case, the appellants were left with no alternative but to
accept the conditions unilaterally prescribed by the
respondent-State in order to secure their livelihood and
sustain a source of income. It would be entirely
unrealistic to assume that, in such circumstances, an
employee seeking temporary employment could
meaningfully negotiate or assert a position against the
overwhelming might of the State machinery. 12.2.At this
juncture, the analogy of apples and oranges serves as a
useful reminder that certain relationships are inherently
incapable of being assessed on an equal plane. A contract
between the State and an employee stands on a similar
footing. The State, in such a relationship, assumes the
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

61
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


role of a metaphorical lion, endowed with overwhelming
authority, resources and bargaining strength, whereas
the employee, who is yet an aspirant, is reduced to the
position of a metaphorical lamb, possessing little real
negotiating power. To suggest parity between the two, i.e.
the lion and the lamb, would be to ignore the stark
imbalance that defines the relationship. 12.3.Therefore,
where a lion contracts with a lamb, the inequality is not
incidental but structural, and it is precisely this
disproportion that calls for judicial sensitivity. In such
situations, the conscience of Constitutional Courts must
inevitably tilt in favour of protecting the lamb. We have
no hesitation in holding that Constitutional Courts are
duty-bound to act to safeguard those who are vulnerable
to exploitation, so that employees are not compelled to
meekly submit to the demands of a vastly dominant
contracting party like the State, but are instead assured
that constitutional protections will intervene to prevent
such exploitation.
Legitimate Expectation of the employees: -
13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of
contractual employees, such as the present appellants, is
the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Where employees
have continued to discharge their duties on contractual
posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present
case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises
that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long
and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by
repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such
employees continue in service and refrain from seeking
alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual
nature of their engagement. At this juncture, it is thus
apposite to advert to the principles governing the
doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this
Court in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar
Sharma, 8 wherein it was held as follows: -

Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

62
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


“63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings
forth the following features regarding the doctrine of
legitimate expectation:
63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on
a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or
anticipation;
63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise
either from an express or implied promise; or a
consistent past practice or custom followed by an
authority in its dealings; . . .
63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the
realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate
action can be taken only when a public authority
breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent
past practice, without any reasonable basis. . . .
64. The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive
in nature, are sufficient to help us in deciding the
applicability of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation to the facts of the case at hand. It is
clear that legitimate expectation, jurisprudentially,
was a device created in order to maintain a check on
arbitrariness in State action. It does not extend to
and cannot govern the operation of contracts
between private parties, wherein the doctrine of
promissory estoppel holds the field.”
(emphasis laid)
It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the
expectation with which such contractual employees
continue in the service of the State. The repeated conduct
of the employer-State in expressing confidence in their
performance and consistently granting monetary
upgrades & tenure extensions reasonably nurtures an
expectation that their long and continuous service would
receive further recognition.
13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi, 9 cautioned that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation cannot ordinarily be extended to persons
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

63
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


whose appointments are temporary, casual or contractual
in nature. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as
follows: -
“47. When a person enters a temporary
employment or gets engagement as a contractual or
casual worker and the engagement is not based on
a proper selection as recognised by the relevant
rules or procedure, he is aware of the
consequences of the appointment being temporary,
casual or contractual in nature. Such a person
cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation
for being confirmed in the post when an
appointment to the post could be made only by
following a proper procedure for selection and in
cases concerned, in consultation with the Public
Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of
legitimate expectation cannot be successfully
advanced by temporary, contractual or casual
employees. It cannot also be held that the State has
held out any promise while engaging these persons
either to continue them where they are or to make
them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally
make such a promise. It is also obvious that the
theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of
being made permanent in the post.”
(emphasis laid)
However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that the
bar against invocation of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation applies only to those temporary, contractual
or casual employees whose engagement was not preceded
by a proper selection process in accordance with the
extant rules. Consequently, where such engagement is
made after following a due and lawful selection
procedure, there is no absolute bar in law preventing
such employees from invoking the doctrine of legitimate
expectation.
Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements:
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

64
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had
engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned
posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of
the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no
further extension of the appellants’ engagement was
likely to be granted.
13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is
not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear
derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially
engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public
duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated
service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for
themselves, particularly when the employment
opportunities that may have been available to them a
decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age
constraints.
13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the
respondent-State’s decision to discontinue the appellants
after nearly ten years of continuous service. We are
conscious that the symbiotic-relationship between the
appellants and the respondent-State was mutually
beneficial, the State derived the advantage of the
appellants’ experience and institutional familiarity, while
the appellants remained in public service. In such
circumstances, any departure from a long-standing
practice of renewal, particularly one that frustrates the
legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be
supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking
order.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious
and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily
discharged his duties over several years and has been
granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated
as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the
justification advanced by the respondents as the
obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

65
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether
their engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated
the practice adopted by States of engaging employees
under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual”
or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them
by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of
India, 10 this Court underscored that government
departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and
stable employment, and evolved the test of examining
whether the duties performed by such temporary
employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of
the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 11 and Vinod Kumar v.
Union of India, 12 this Court cautioned against a
mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to
deny regularization to temporary employees in the
absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi
(supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise
exploitative engagements continued for years without
undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further
clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between
appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely
“irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization
upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.13, this Court
strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted
by States in their capacity as employers. The Court
criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing
recruitment as a means to evade regular employment
obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate
precarious working conditions while circumventing fair
and lawful engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time
employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral
part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State
continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the
system, but form essential components thereof. The
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

66
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires
that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from
arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State
affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and
contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s
contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the
appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional
protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’
services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant
to a due process of selection and having consistently
acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in
the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision,
abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge
behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is
manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of
the State to act as a model employer, and fails to
withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing
paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the
appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade
under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and
thereafter denying them consideration for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or
passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to
waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual
stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from
constitutional scrutiny.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

67
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on
contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi
(supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-
serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness,
dignity and constitutional governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the
respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of
all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which
they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be
entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing
from the date of this judgment.
15. Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of and
all writ petitions are allowed and the judgments dated
17th September, 2024, 15th October, 2024 and 2nd
December, 2024, in LPA Nos. 390 of 2024, 356 of 2024
and 368 of 2024, respectively, passed by the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi are set aside.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of. ”

This case very strongly supports the case of the applicant. We
categorically find that the applicant has a much better case whose
initial selection was through a constitutionally recognised open
selection and interview followed by verification of all eligibility
conditions. Mere giving the employment a fixed term contract in
2006, and continuing to technically break a continuous service in
perennial nature of work till 2021 and surreptitiously without any
known procedure under the law changing that term of employment
from the direct contract to outsourcing may not conceal the true
nature of long term continuous employment of the applicant.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

68
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


33. Further, we have also seen the Hon’ble Apex Court ruling
in State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and others in
Civil Appeal No. 6208/2010 decided on 03.08.2010 cited in (2010)
9 Supreme Court Cases 247 , which clearly says that only irregular
appointments are entitled to regularization in terms of para 53 of
Umadevi case and further elaborates what it is illegal and irregular.
It will be illegal only if it is not through the constitutional process
of open selection and the appointee is not a qualified person for a
vacant post but if the post were vacant and the applicant was
qualified and if the appointment was not through the due process, it
becomes irregular.
34. We find the case of the applicant much stronger as his
appointment was through a regular process of selection. Calling
open and competitive application from newspaper publication
against vacant post and verifying his all eligibility conditions in
interview and his educational qualification in 2006 all substantiate
that in the present case, the applicant was having regular
appointment, only it was given colour as fixed term contract
appointment to avoid labour dues which was highly irregular.
Hence, this case very strongly supports the case of the applicant.
35. Further, we have seen the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and
others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another in Civil Appeal
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

69
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


No. 18510/2017 decided on 13.11.2017 by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
cited in (2018) 13 Supreme Court Cases 432 , which mentions that
regularization, entitlement to regularization appellants appointed in
1993 and after rendering service for three years offered service on
contract basis, direction to regularise appellants given in 1999
despite which they were not regularized but were granted minimum
pay scale in 2000 and conferred temporary status in 2006 with
retrospective effect from 02.10.2002 and it further examined the
case on the anvil of Umadevi and judicial notice was taken of the
fact that spirit of Umadevi case was ignored and conveniently
overlooked by various States by making appointments on
contract/ad-hoc/daily-wage basis without due payment of salary and
not regularising the services of incumbents. We find this case also
strongly supports the case of the applicant.
36. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the citations as referred above, we are of the considered opinion
that the applicant has substantiated his case that grave injustice has
been done to him and in spite of vacant post and his eligibility in
2006 which was checked through an interview and the selection
process being a constitutional process of open selection through
calling application from newspaper publication and verifying his
educational and other qualifications, caste and other eligibility and
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

70
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


continuing him continuously in perennial nature of work and only
technically intentionally and perniciously breaking his service in
every quarter for few days and in 2021 shifting him to an
outsourced contract without due procedure, and in 2025 removing
him from so-called fraudulently outsourced contractor’s
employment without due process of law were all unfair and
illegitimate labour or human resource practice. The applicant was a
perennial regular employee of the respondents; and did satisfactory
work and keeping his selection of 2018 and the proposal to relax
age criteria recommended by the Director to the DG, ICMR still
pending is unjust, perverse and unwise procrastination.
Conclusions:-
37. We have carefully considered the above discussions and in
the light of the same, our findings to various facts and issues in
dispute for consideration are following: -
a) We are of the considered opinion that the applicant was
appointed against vacant post of Mali which was clearly advertised
through the New Indian Express newspaper publication as
discussed earlier and through due process of calling application
from all the prospective eligible candidates. Everyone who applied
out of them after interview, the applicant was selected through a
constitutionally recognized due process of selection. Hence, the
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

71
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


applicant’s selection for the post although labelled as temporary and
contractual but was against a clear vacancy identified and
advertised through newspaper and through open competition and
interview, he was selected. Hence, his selection cannot be
considered as either illegal or irregular; it was very much legal and
regular.
b) We have also examined if applicant possessed the eligibility
to hold the vacant post of Mali at the time of his appointment in
2006 and as it is evident in the paper advertised itself the eligibility
criteria were clearly laid out and in the interview call letter also it
was said that all eligibility related documents and credentials of the
applicant like age, his academic certificates and conduct experience
and caste, etc. should be furnished and it is evident that he had been
selected, offered job in 2006 and continued till 2025 which itself
shows he was very much eligible and fulfilled all eligibility criteria,
hence, he was selected and offered a job, and also as well as he was
discharging his duties diligently he was continued in service from
2006 to 2025.
c) We have deliberated earlier whether the appointment of the
applicant initially on contract basis till 31.03.2007 pursuant to
interview dated 19.09.2006 vide the respondents letter dated
12.09.2006 and his reporting for duty on 13.10.2006 and then
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

72
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


continuation of service by various letters of the respondents
including Ref No. RMRC/BGM/509/138 dated 04.04.2007 w.e.f.
04.04.2007 and then further continuation vide Ref
No.RMRC/BGM/509/126 dated 01.04.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2008
intentionally breaking service and further extender his service vide
Ref No. RMRC/BGM/512/09/10/148 dated 02.04.2009 w.e.f.
02.04.2009 and then further continuation vide Ref No.
RMRC/BGM/10-11/515/130 dated 03.04.2010 w.e.f. 03.04.2010
and further continuation vide Ref No. RMRC/BGM/10-11/515/137
dated 02.04.2011 w.e.f. 02.04.2011 on the rolls of the applicant by
technically breaking service after every 89 days and continuing him
till 2021 was just, legal, legitimate and a fair labour practice or fair
personnel policy by the respondents, and our answer is that
although the respondents have labelled the post as temporary and on
contract basis but his continuation for so long from 2006 to 2025,
19 long years shows that it was very much a perennial nature of
work and a permanent nature of post and only to avoid labour dues
and social securities and to exploit the vulnerability of the
applicant, the employer-employee relationship was structured as
temporary contractual and from 2007 onwards it was given a break
of service after every 89 days which is an extremely unfortunate
and perverse labour practice and personnel policy. If the work was
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

73
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


of perennial nature continuing year after year for 19 long years, it is
dishonest to say that it was of temporary nature and to keep the
employee as contractual so that he remains subservient and could be
exploited at will and hence, we do not approve of such practices
and we find that as his service was satisfactory and he was
continued for more than 10 years as per Umadevi judgment (supra),
his case was one of the most deserving for regularization or any
other benefit of rule relaxation etc. The department had been
excessively unfair in its labour practice and personnel policy with
respect to the applicant and their relationship with the applicant is
far from satisfactory and was clearly exploitative.
d) Further, after 2021 suddenly changing the terms of direct
contract employment of the applicant which was earlier direct fixed
contractual service changing it through an outsourced agency and
continuing him as an outsourced employee from 2021 till 2025 was
highly unjust, illegal, illegitimate and an unfair labour practice and
unfair personnel policy by the respondents. No proper procedure
was followed for such change in labour employment contract and
that gave unfair enrichment to the respondent department and
pushed the applicant to further exploitative practice of outsourced
labour which further strengthens the case of the applicant for both
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

74
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


regularization as well as giving him benefit of relaxation of age for
regular employment to MTS.
e) We have further examined whether after 2025 suddenly
discontinuation of the long service of the applicant initially through
direct contract and subsequently through the contractor and we find
that it was very unjust, illegal, illegitimate and unfair labour
practice and unfair personnel policy by the respondents.
Respondents cannot say as a principal that it is the lookout of the
outsourced agency the contractor how he employs and who he
employs but all labour laws and their labour practice have to be
ultimate responsibility of the principal employer and he cannot
shirk those responsibilities. If there is a perennial nature of work
which continues a worker who is serving for 19 long years cannot
be discontinued if the work continues. Last come, first go is the
legal principle in those cases and 19 years of long service of the
applicant cannot be just ignored and without due process of law he
cannot be terminated from service or discontinued from service. We
find his discontinuation in service in 2025 through the contractor as
illegal, unjust, illegitimate and unfair labour practice and unfair
personnel policy by the respondents, which further strengthens the
case of the applicant for both regularization in terms of the
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

75
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


Umadevi judgment (supra) as well as for getting age relaxation in
regular appointment of MTS for which selection happened in 2018.
f) We have examined non-action of the Director General,
ICMR on one-time relaxation of age since the year 2018 even
though the selection committee after due process of advertisement
and interview and selection selected the applicant and found him
otherwise eligible for the post of MTS but as he was not qualifying
for age but for his long meritorious service of 12 years by then
considered for due relaxation. It certainly was unfair, illegitimate
labour practice and unfair personnel policy ignoring the long
meritorious service of the applicant in the respondent’s organisation
and not taking a quick decision in his case for relaxation of age. We
have found that the rules clearly provided the Director General,
ICMR had plenary powers to relax any rule and he had to only
record such reasons in writing. It is a fact accepted by the
respondents that no decision has been taken and the file still
remains pending in the case although they claimed, which is not
substantiated that posts are not vacant. If the decision was not taken
in the advertisement of 2018 and there is pending reference, the
respondent department had no legal right to fill it otherwise. So, it is
presumed that there is still a vacant post against the 2018 advertised
vacancy and this reference is still pending. In the case of the
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

76
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


applicant who had perfected his rights of age relaxation at least if
not, any other relaxation of eligibility conditions like educational
qualifications, etc. due to his long meritorious service, non-
relaxation of such conditions is perverse, illegal and arbitrary.
There is no choice in such cases but to record reasons of long
meritorious service of the employee and relax case wise such age
requirement if they were otherwise eligible on the date of their
induction into service. Such relaxation shall be beneficial for both
the employer and the employee, as the employer retains a trained
manpower, and employee is able to reap the fruits of his long
standing labour and meritorious service. We find from the facts
placed before us and agreed by both the parties that the applicant
was appointed on a vacant so-called temporary and contractual
employment on a post of Mali which was duly advertised in the
New Indian Express newspaper in 2006 and the eligible candidates
were interviewed on 19.09.2006 and out of them, the applicant was
one of the meritorious selected candidates and he was offered letter
of employment on 12.09.2006 and he reported for duty on
13.10.2006 and he continued till 2021 on direct contract although
the respondent department illegally and unlawfully technically
broke his employment contract every 89 days for one/two days and
in the year 2021, they forced the applicant to come through a
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

77
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


contractor as outsourced person and in 2025 he was eased out from
the outsourced contractor’s employment also. We find that these
were related to his asking for relaxation in age and to regularize his
services in 2018 when he was very much eligible and in spite of his
eligibility, no decision was taken by the Director General. Hence,
we are of the opinion that the applicant is eligible for regular
employment from 2018 when he was duly selected by the
Committee and as he was otherwise eligible, the age relaxation
should have been given to him as a matter of right as he was
eligible on all criteria when he was inducted in service in 2006 and
he had long meritorious service of 12 years by then. Hence, this
strongly supports the case of the applicant.
g) As discussed earlier, we find that the leading Hon’ble Apex
Court judgment on Umadevi case, (supra) strongly supports the
case of the applicant as his case is not of an illegal or irregular
entry. His entry was after advertisement of so-called temporary post
through the newspaper and open competition and after due process
of selection through interview, he was found meritorious and
selected and as his work was satisfactory, he was continued from
2006 till 2025. Hence, he has a very strong case for both
regularisation as well as for regular employment and for regular
employment getting the benefit of one-time relaxation of the age.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

78
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


We find that the case of the applicant is rarest of the rare and great
injustice has been done to him by the respondent department.
h) Hence, we pass the following:-
ORDER
In our considered opinion when the veil of fraudulent and
perverse unilaterally forced contrived temporary fixed term contract
appointment of applicant in 2006 after due process of calling
application through newspaper publication against vacant post of
Mali, and subjecting the applicant to a selection interview, and
verifying his eligibility conditions including his age, educational
and other qualification, caste certificate and conduct certificate etc.;
and renewing his fixed term direct contract through equally
perverse, artificial and illegal technical small breaks in service till
2021, and subsequently shifting the applicant’s services through
Contractors as an outsourced contract employee and continuing him
till 2025 by the respondents all through in a perennial nature of
work, and his satisfactory performance all through, and his sudden
removal from outsourcing contractor in 2025 without due notice
and laid down procedure, all goes to conclusively substantiate the
case of the applicant as a regular, legal, front door appointee,
having all credentials and eligibility to get regularized his full
length of service from his initial appointment in 2006. Hence, on
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja

79
OA.No.170/00092/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


the anvil of Umadevi judgment, the applicant has all the credentials
to get regularized his services from all through and to be reinstated
with immediate effect. And this in our considered opinion is a rarest
of the rare case, hence, he is eligible for immediate reinstatement
and regularization from the date of his completing 10 years of
service from his initial appointment or from the date his selection in
MTS post in 2018, relaxing the rules of eligibility, specifically age
as envisaged in MTS Recruitment Rules or whichever is later with
all consequential benefits including salary for the period of
wrongful removal. The applicant will be eligible for due wages and
all consequential benefits with 8% interest.
Accordingly, the OA is allowed . The respondents are directed
to implement this order expeditiously and in no event later than 12
weeks from this order failing which, they shall pay 18% interest and
that interest shall be recoverable from all the respondents’ officers
held accountable for practicing highly unfair, perverse, illegal and
pernicious labour practices.
All associated MAs, if any pending, are disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
( DR. SANJIV KUMAR ) ( JUSTICE S. SUJATHA )
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.01
09:48:27+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja