Similarly situated contractual employees are entitled to regularization, with prior service qualifying only for pension.

The applicants were Senior Laboratory Attendants in Chandigarh government colleges and the State Council of Educational Research and Training. They had been appointed on different dates following selection processes and claimed to have served against sanctioned posts while receiving minimum pay and allowances.

They sought recognition of their appointments as regular from the dates of initial appointment or, alternatively, consideration under the Punjab Government policy dated 18 March 2011, relying on various judgments concerning contractual appointments and regularization.

The respondents maintained that the applicants had been engaged on contractual terms, terminable without notice or reason, and had accepted those terms.

The applicants relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Rajesh Verma v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, O.A. No. 11/2019, and the High Court’s subsequent modification of that decision.

Whether the applicants, appointed on contract and claiming service against sanctioned posts after a selection process, were entitled to regularization.

Whether regularization should operate from the applicants’ initial appointment dates, or from the date of the Tribunal’s order, with their earlier service counted for pensionary qualifying service.

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants sought relief.

It relied on its decision in Rajesh Verma v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, O.A. No. 11/2019, as modified by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which directed regularization from the date of the Tribunal’s order and treated earlier service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits only.

The decisions in Nishi v. Panjab University and Jaggo v. Union of India, as discussed in Rajesh Verma, were cited for the principle that long service following selection against sanctioned posts may support regularization where the appointment is not a backdoor or otherwise illegal appointment.

The High Court’s order, quoting Dharam Singh, further stated that procedural defects or the absence of an existing post should not, by themselves, defeat consideration for regularization; however, regularization need not be granted from the initial appointment date.

The Tribunal considered the applicants similarly situated to the employee in Rajesh Verma and noted that the respondents did not dispute the applicability of that decision.

It therefore applied the same relief, as modified by the High Court, rather than granting regular status from each applicant’s initial appointment date. The initial-service period was limited to qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

It directed the respondents to regularize the applicants from the date of the Tribunal’s order, with consequential benefits, and to count their service from initial appointment until regularization as qualifying service for pensionary benefits only.

The required exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order; no costs were awarded.