Tihar Jail Physiotherapists, Radiographers Get Same Appointment Benefits As Earlier Workers: Delhi HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in extending to the respondents the relief granted to similarly situated applicants in Subodh Kumar.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, holding that the respondents were entitled to the same benefits extended to the applicants in Subodh Kumar, as reflected in the office orders dated 30 April 2015 and 6 July 2015.

01Facts

The respondents were appointed as Physiotherapists/Radiographers in Tihar Jail from 2005 onwards and sought relief on the basis of orders obtained by similarly situated employees in Subodh Kumar.

p. 1

In that matter, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the authorities to frame a scheme for regular employment; the High Court subsequently directed consideration of regular recruitment as a one-time measure and payment of minimum-scale wages, and its decision was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court.

pp. 1–4

Following those proceedings, the authorities issued orders taking certain applicants on strength and approving relaxation of age and educational qualifications, subject to specified conditions.

pp. 4–6

The Tribunal extended the Subodh Kumar relief to the present respondents, directing consideration of their rights on the same basis, without seniority or salary arrears.

p. 6

The GNCTD challenged that order; its counsel could not distinguish the respondents’ position from that of the Subodh Kumar applicants.

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in extending to the respondents the relief granted to similarly situated applicants in Subodh Kumar.

p. 7

ii.2. If so, whether the respondents’ relief should be limited to the benefits reflected in the authorities’ orders dated 30 April 2015 and 6 July 2015.

p. 7

03Law Applied

In Subodh Kumar, the High Court directed the GNCTD, as a one-time measure, to frame a scheme to consider regular recruitment of qualifying applicants still working at Tihar Jail, with age relaxation; pending implementation, they were to receive the minimum of the applicable pay scale.

pp. 2–3

The Court also relied on the principle that non-regular employment does not justify paying less than the minimum of the relevant scale for equal work.

p. 3

That judgment had attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge and review petition.

p. 4

The resulting administrative orders provided for specified appointments, relaxation of age and educational qualifications, and training and certification conditions.

pp. 4–6

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the respondents sought the same relief as the applicants in Subodh Kumar and that the Tribunal had extended that relief to them.

p. 6

The GNCTD’s counsel was unable to identify any material distinction between the respondents and the earlier applicants.

p. 7

Given that the Subodh Kumar decision had attained finality, the Court found no error in the Tribunal’s decision to follow it, while clarifying that the respondents’ benefits were confined to those reflected in the two administrative orders.

p. 7