Regularization from initial appointment carries pay protection where selection followed due process.

The applicants were selected through a recruitment process following the Central Agricultural University’s advertisement dated 15 June 2012 and joined as MTS/MTS Belder in October 2013.

They served continuously under an AICRP project, on appointments described by the University as project-based and co-terminus with the project.

Following earlier Tribunal orders dated 16 May 2024 in O.A. Nos. 73/2018 and 114/2018, upheld by the Manipur High Court, the University issued orders dated 28 September 2024 appointing the applicants to regular MTS posts with effect from 1 October 2024.

The applicants sought regularisation from their initial joining dates, consequential seniority, and protection of the basic pay they had reached through increments.

The University opposed retrospective regularisation and pay protection, contending that the applicants had accepted project appointments and that the earlier Tribunal orders did not direct regularisation from their initial appointment dates.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to regular appointment or regularisation as MTS from their initial joining dates in 2013, rather than from 1 October 2024.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to protection of their existing basic pay, consequential benefits, and notional seniority upon regular appointment.

The Tribunal relied on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, para 44(B), which states that where an initial appointment was not made in accordance with the prescribed rules but the appointee continued uninterruptedly until regularisation in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service may be counted.

The Tribunal also invoked the principle of equal treatment in relation to the applicants’ comparison with similarly situated employees, including Shri Sonam Bhutia.

The Tribunal considered the applicants’ selection through an advertised process, their continuous service from 2013, and the regular appointment of Shri Bhutia from the same selection despite his having obtained fewer marks.

It also noted the applicants’ assertion that other project-appointed employees had received pay protection on regular absorption.

Applying the principle in Direct Recruit, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants’ service from their initial joining dates should count and that they were entitled to the same treatment as the comparator employee.

It therefore rejected the University’s position that the applicants’ project-service period could not support retrospective regularisation and pay protection.

It directed the respondents to grant the applicants regular appointment/regularisation as MTS from their respective dates of joining in 2013, protect their basic pay of Rs. 24,900, and provide consequential benefits, including notional seniority and pay protection.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within two months of receiving the order; there was no order as to costs.