Surinder Singh vs Chief Secretary & Others

R. N. Singh, Member (J)

The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Acts, 1985 praying therein for the following relief:-

“(i) Pass an order directing the Respondents to take back Or quash/set aside the Order dated 20.08.2020 with immediate effect,

(Annexure A/1).

(ii) Pass an order directing the Respondents to Regularize the Applicant in the interest of justice, and

(iii) Pass further order/s in the interest of justice.â€​

It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed to the post of Staff Nurse on contract basis under the respondents in September, 2005 and

thereafter the he has been continuing as such under the respondents uninterruptedly. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has

become entitled for being considered for regularisation in view of the Order/Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.6798/2002 -

titled Ms. Sonia Gandhi & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Or sL.earned counsel for the applicant further argues that in spite of the judgment of

the Hon’ble High Court in Sonia Gandhi (Supra), respondents have not considered the applicant for regularisation and, therefore, the applicant

has preferred a representation dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure A2 Colly). However, the same has not yet been considered and disposed of by the

respondents.

Issue notice.

Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned standing counsel, who appears on advance service for respondents, accepts notice. She invites our attention to the

prayer made by the applicant in his aforesaid representation. The prayer of the applicant in the said representation dated 27.08.2020 reads as under:-

“You are as such requested to kindly consider my case sympathetically in the light of various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court

and Delhi High Court and regularize me as I am working since 2005 OR to make the policy to regularize me and also take back the order

dated 20.08.2020F.B(236)/Nursing/H&FW/2020/14 007-12 in the interest of justice. â€​

Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have also formulated a policy for considering the contractual

employees for appointment/regularisation vide order dated 11.10.2020 and in view thereof, the applicant’s representation under reference stands

disposed of substantially. However, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said policy though gives certain concessions to the contractual

employee, however, the same requires participation of contractual employees in the selection process. However, it is not disputed that the said policy

is not the subject matter of challenge in the present OA. Accordingly, we may not comment upon the said policy in the present OA.

However, in the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the present OA may be disposed of, without going into the merits of

the case, with direction to the respondents to consider the applicant’s aforesaid representation dated 27.08.2020 and to dispose the same by

passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

It is further ordered that till passing of the speaking order, the respondents shall maintain status quo on the employment of the applicant.

OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.