Contractual employees may continue until regular appointments are made, notwithstanding the rejection of immediate regularization.

Eight applicants, employed as Social Guides at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, filed an Original Application (OA) challenging their disengagement effective from 01.04.2023

The applicants alleged that the respondents sought to replace them with freshers or outsourced personnel, which they claimed was illegal and discriminatory

They sought directions for the continuation of their services and regularization based on a 2016 committee recommendation

The respondents filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 1279/2026) requesting the disposal of the OA based on the Tribunal’s earlier judgments in Naveen Kumar Maithani Ors. v. Union of India (OA No. 2507/2022) and Vinod Ors. v. Union of India (OA No. 1754/2023), which dealt with identical facts

Counsel for the applicants did not oppose the facts or the request for disposal based on parity

1. Whether the disengagement of the applicants and their replacement by freshers or outsourced agencies is legally sustainable

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization or absorption in the regular cadre of AIIMS

The Tribunal adjudicated the matter under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It relied on the legal principles regarding regularization established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh Ors. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10519/2020)

Furthermore, it applied the principle of parity and stare decisis by following its own coordinates bench decisions in Naveen Kumar Maithani and Vinod Ors., which established that temporary employees may continue until regular appointments are made but cannot claim regularization as a matter of right in the absence of a specific scheme

The Tribunal observed that the issues raised by the Social Guides were identical to those decided in previous litigations against the same respondent

By referring to paragraph 10 of the Naveen Kumar Maithani judgment, the Tribunal noted that the prayer for regularization must be rejected at this stage in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey

However, the Tribunal balanced the administrative requirements of AIIMS with the rights of the applicants by holding that they should not be replaced by other temporary or outsourced staff if the work remains available

The court reasoned that while regularization is subject to policy decisions and Recruitment Rules (RRs), the applicants are entitled to continue their services subject to exigencies until regular recruitment takes place through formal channels

However, it directed that the applicants be allowed to continue in service, as per requirement and exigencies, until regular appointments are made through a regular channel

The Tribunal clarified that these observations would not prevent either party from pursuing regularization if a formal scheme is proposed by the respondents in the future in consonance with policy decisions or RRs

No order as to costs was made