Duly selected ad hoc doctors are entitled to regularization from their initial appointment dates.

The applicants, Medical Officers in the General Duty Medical Officers Sub-Cadre of the Central Health Service, were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis under the Labour Welfare Organisation.

Applicant No. 1 continuously served from 11.11.1995, while Applicant No. 2 continuously served from 02.01.1996, without any break in service.

They were among 25 doctors appointed between 1994 and 1997 after newspaper advertisements or reference to Employment Exchanges and selection through duly constituted committees.

Their services were subsequently regularized with effect from 18.09.2014 by order dated 04.02.2016.

The applicants sought regularization from their respective initial dates of appointment, together with consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation, DACP benefits and arrears.

The respondents contended that ad hoc service could not be counted for regular appointment or seniority under DoPT instructions and that the applicants’ regularization from 18.09.2014 followed the UPSC recommendation and administrative advice.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regularization in the post of Medical Officer from their respective initial dates of ad hoc appointment, namely 11.11.1995 and 02.01.1996, instead of 18.09.2014.

Whether the applicants were entitled to consequential benefits, including fixation of seniority from the dates of such regularization.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of precedent and judicial consistency, particularly the decision in Dr. N. Swarnalatha v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 285 of 2016, in which regularization from the initial date of appointment was directed in materially similar circumstances.

The Hyderabad Bench reasoned that where an employee continuously discharged the same duties before and after regularization, the ad hoc label could be replaced by regular status from the date of initial appointment, subject to the facts and judicial directions in the case.

The Tribunal also considered the respondents’ reliance on R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah, State of Orissa v. Sukanti Mahapatra, K.C. Joshi v. Union of India, State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Dr. M.A. Haque v. Union of India, Dr. Arundhati A. Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, and Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, as well as DoPT OMs dated 30.03.1988 and 23.07.2001 concerning the general limitations on regularization of ad hoc service.

However, the decisive principle was that the applicants’ case was governed by the binding and affirmed decision in Swarnalatha.

The Tribunal found that the material facts and legal issues were substantially identical to those decided in Swarnalatha: the doctors had been appointed on an ad hoc basis, had continuously performed the duties of Medical Officers, and were later regularized in the same cadre with effect from 18.09.2014.

Since the Hyderabad Bench’s decision had been upheld by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP, the Tribunal held that there was no justifiable reason to depart from that precedent.

Although the respondents relied on general rules and instructions that ordinarily exclude ad hoc service from seniority and regularization, the Tribunal considered the applicants to be similarly situated to the successful applicant in Swarnalatha.

Applying the doctrine of precedent, it therefore extended the same relief to the applicants.

The respondents were directed to issue a fresh order regularizing Applicant No. 1 from 11.11.1995 and Applicant No. 2 from 02.01.1996, being their respective dates of initial appointment.

The respondents were further directed to grant all consequential benefits arising from such regularization, including fixation of seniority from the dates of regularization, within three months from the date of the order.

No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.