Tribunal permits withdrawal of original applications with liberty to agitate service grievances afresh.

A large batch of applicants (healthcare workers/nurses) filed several Original Applications (OAs) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against the Union of India and various central government hospitals, including Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, AIIMS, and Lady Hardinge Medical College

The applicants challenged a notice dated April 12, 2023, and sought the implementation of a government notification dated May 3, 2021

This notification, issued following the Supreme Court’s directions in a Suo Moto COVID-19 related matter, mandated that preference be given in regular recruitment to individuals who rendered at least 100 days of pandemic-related duty

The applicants specifically sought absorption into 84 regular vacant posts and a stay on the discontinuation of their services

During the hearing on March 14, 2026, the counsel for the applicants sought to withdraw the OAs to agitate the grievances through fresh proceedings

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular absorption or recruitment preference based on the rendering of 100 days of pandemic-related duty under the notification dated 03.05.2021

2. Whether the applicants may be permitted to withdraw the current batch of applications with liberty to file fresh proceedings to agitate their grievances

The Tribunal considered the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare notification dated 03.05.2021, which was issued pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies & Services during Pandemic (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2021)

This notification established the principle that healthcare workers who completed 100 days of COVID-19 duty should be prioritized in regular recruitment processes

The Tribunal also applied procedural norms regarding the withdrawal of OAs with liberty to refile under the Administrative Tribunals Act

The Tribunal observed that although the specific prayers in the various OAs within the batch were slightly different, the underlying legal issue—concerning preference for pandemic duty—was identical across all matters

The applicants argued that the respondents failed to honor the Supreme Court-mandated preference policy for those who served during the pandemic

However, the Tribunal did not reach a determination on the merits of the absorption claim or the validity of the impugned notice dated 12.04.2023, because the applicants’ counsel requested to withdraw the applications at this stage

Finding no objection from the respondents’ counsel, the Tribunal accepted the request for withdrawal while ensuring the applicants’ right to raise these grievances in future legal proceedings was protected through the grant of "liberty"

The OAs and all pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were dismissed as withdrawn, with the specific liberty granted to the applicants to agitate their grievances afresh in accordance with the law if so advised

No order was made as to costs