Long-term casual employees on technical posts must be regularized on equivalent technical posts, not administrative ones.

The applicant was appointed as a Lab Technician on a casual basis at AIIMS on May 5, 2003.

After 17 years of continuous service on a technical post, he sought regularization based on a scheme formulated following a Supreme Court mandate to regularize research workers with over 15 years of service.

However, vide orders dated January 23, 2020, and March 7, 2020, the respondents offered the applicant the post of Junior Administrative Assistant (LDC) in Grade Pay Rs. 1900/- instead of Medical Lab Technologist (MLT) in Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-.

The respondents argued that under the revised Recruitment Rules (RRs) effective August 1, 2018, the applicant lacked the specific educational qualifications (Bachelors in MLT) required for the post.

The applicant contended that other similarly situated individuals (e.g., Dr. Eunice, Mr. Shahid) were regularized as MLTs despite not meeting the revised RRs, based on their long service and eligibility under old RRs.

1. Whether the respondents’ action of regularizing a technical employee with 17 years of experience into a non-technical/administrative cadre post (Junior Administrative Assistant) is sustainable in law.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization as a Medical Lab Technologist (MLT) in light of the treatment accorded to similarly situated persons and the nature of his prior service.

The Tribunal applied the principles of regularization established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. V.P. Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. No. 917/90), which directed the formulation of schemes to absorb long-term research workers.

The court relied on the principle of parity and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16, as seen in the Coordinate Bench judgment in Shailendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. AIIMS & Anr. (OA No. 3422/2022), which held that employees working for decades on technical posts should be regularized in their respective technical fields rather than being shifted to unrelated administrative roles.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to justify regularizing a technical employee into a clerical role after 17 years of service, noting that the duties of a Junior Administrative Assistant are entirely distinct from an MLT.

The court highlighted a lack of "application of mind," noting that while the respondents cited new RRs to deny the applicant, they had regularized other employees like Dr. Eunice and Mr. Shahid as MLTs by applying the old RRs or considering their long service.

The Tribunal emphasized that since this was a case of regularization (based on a court-ordered scheme) rather than direct recruitment, the rigid application of the 2018 RRs to someone who began service in 2003 was improper.

Following the precedent in Shailendra Kumar Singh, the Tribunal determined that the applicant’s experience and the treatment of peers entitled him to the MLT designation.

The respondents were directed to regularize the applicant as a Medical Lab Technologist effective from the date of his initial regularization (January 28, 2020).

The applicant was granted consequential benefits including seniority and notional pay fixation in the MLT grade, though he was denied back wages (difference in pay) for the intervening period on the principle of "no work, no pay" as he had not discharged MLT duties during that time. Compliance was ordered within six weeks.