Ad- Hoc/Temporary/ Contractual Employee Does Not Have The Vested Right To Seek Regularization: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court reiterated that an ad- hoc /temporary/ contractual employee does not have the vested right to seek regularization despite the fact that such employee has been working for a long time with the public authority.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that, "It is a settled position of law that the ad- hoc /temporary/ contractual employee does not have the vested right to seek regularization despite the fact that such employee has been working for a long time with the public authority. An exception is carved out in this regard that a temporary employee who has been appointed at a sanctioned post in accordance with the recruitment rules by the competent authority can seek regularization on his/her post."
Senior Counsel MS Ganesh, along with others, appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Panel Counsel KC Dubey, along with others, appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner joined respondent no.1/ICSSR on July 13, 1989, as a Research Assistant on an ad-hoc basis for six months. Subsequently, her services were terminated on January 10, 1990. Despite being an ad-hoc temporary employee, she was periodically reappointed with breaks. In 1997, she faced disciplinary action for an absence period, but after responding, she was allowed to rejoin on an ad-hoc basis.
A committee addressed the regularization of ad-hoc appointments, and in 1998, five Research Assistants were regularized. In December 1998 and March 1999, the petitioner's services were also regularized with a notional pay scale, considering her employment break as a technical break based on the committee's recommendation.
The petitioner availed benefits under the ACP Scheme in 2008 and received promotions. However, in 2021, the respondent no.1 issued recovery orders, withdrawing the benefits granted in 2001 and 2009. Despite filing a writ petition, the respondent no.1 denied rectification. The petitioner approached the court, aggrieved by the denial of her request and the recovery orders.
Subsequently, the Court held that, "The impugned orders passed by the respondent...does not suffer from illegality and does not violate any legal rights of the petitioner."
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Counsel MS Ganesh, Counsels K Seshachary, TVS Raghavendra Sreyas, Amitesh Kumar, Siddharth Vasudev, Rao Raj Bahadur Singh
Respondents: Senior Panel Counsel KC Dubey, Counsels Mimansak Bhardwaj, Amitesh Kumar, Priti Kumari, Mrinal Kisho, SS Hooda, Aayushman Aeron, Ashutosh Kumar
Cause Title: Alka Shrivastava vs Indian Council of Social Science Research & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
