Long-term co-terminus appointment mandates fair consideration for regularisation, not automatic absorption.

The Applicant, Shri Har Kishan, was initially appointed on 24.05.2004 as a Peon in the personal staff of the then Defence Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, on a co-terminus basis

His services ended when the Minister demitted office.

He was subsequently re-appointed on a co-terminus basis in the personal staff of Shri Pranab Mukherjee when he served as External Affairs Minister (25.10.2006) and Finance Minister (06.06.2009)

On 06.08.2012, upon Shri Pranab Mukherjee assuming office as President of India, the Applicant was appointed as House Attendant on a co-terminus basis in the Household Establishment of the President's Secretariat.

The Applicant's services were terminated by an Office Order dated 20.07.2017, although he claims to have continued duties until 25.07.2017.

The Applicant contends that his long and continuous service (approximately 13 years overall, and about 5 years in the President’s Secretariat) entitled him to regularisation and that his termination was discriminatory and arbitrary, especially when compared to another employee, Shri Dasarathi Chhatria, who was regularised.

The Respondents argue that appointments to Ministers'/President's personal staff are strictly co-terminus and do not confer a right to regularisation, citing the policy for such appointments and Supreme Court judgments like Umadevi.

They state that Shri Chhatria was regularised after being selected against a sanctioned vacancy through due process, distinguishing his case from the Applicant's.

1. Whether the termination of the Applicant’s co-terminus appointment, after approximately 13 years of service under successive co-terminus appointments, warranted consideration for regularisation or reinstatement?

2. Whether the Applicant's termination was arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of natural justice, particularly in light of the alleged regularisation of a similarly placed employee?

3. Whether the principles laid down in judicial pronouncements regarding long and continuous engagement, such as Jaggo, require the competent authority to re-examine the Applicant’s case for regularisation despite the co-terminus nature of his appointments?

The court referred to principles regarding co-terminus appointments and regularisation, particularly drawing from the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, which generally holds that persons appointed dehors recruitment rules and on contractual basis are not entitled to regularisation.

However, it also relied on subsequent judicial pronouncements like Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826), Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 327, and others, which clarified that the initial label of contractual, temporary, or co-terminus may lose significance after long and continuous engagement, necessitating fair, non-arbitrary, and reasoned consideration of such claims in light of constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16.

The Tribunal also acknowledged the Wednesbury principle for arbitrary administrative action and proportionality for discriminatory action under Article 14.

The Tribunal acknowledged that while a co-terminus appointment does not automatically lead to permanent absorption, subsequent judicial pronouncements, particularly Jaggo, have emphasized that long and continuous engagement over several years against functional requirements can make the initial 'label' inconsequential.

In the present case, the Applicant’s engagement spanned over a decade, with continuous service in the President's Secretariat from 2012 to 2017.

The Tribunal noted the Applicant’s allegation of discriminatory treatment compared to Shri Dasarathi Chhatria, who was regularised, and recognized the Respondents' counter-argument that Shri Chhatria was selected against a sanctioned post through due process.

However, the Tribunal highlighted that it needs to be factually examined whether the Applicant was ever considered for such a vacancy or if any regular vacancies existed during his tenure for which he was eligible.

Furthermore, issues regarding the timing of the termination order and alleged continued attendance, though not necessarily conferring a right to continuation, warranted administrative clarification to rule out procedural irregularity or arbitrariness.

Therefore, the specific application of Umadevi needed to be balanced with the principles of fair consideration and equality as emphasized in Jaggo and other subsequent judgments for employees with long service.

The competent authority was directed to examine the nature and length of the Applicant’s service, the applicability of principles from Jaggo and similar judgments, the availability of regular sanctioned posts during his tenure, and the allegation of discriminatory treatment.

The Respondents are mandated to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the receipt of the order, keeping all contentions of both parties open.

The Original Application thus stands disposed of in these terms, with no order as to costs.