CAT penalises PGIMER for not regularising restorer
Complainant was not adjusted against regular post despite directions from high court and CAT on two occasions since 1995
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on PGIMER, Chandigarh, for denying pension benefits to a restorer who worked with the institute for 40 years.
The tribunal has directed the medical institute through its director and dean (R), medical education and research cell, to pay ₹2,500 each to the applicant with arrears.
“The whole exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. I find the action of PGIMER in not making any effort despite assurance to consider the case of the applicant to regularise on any suitable post is neither justifiable nor equitable. Therefore, total costs of ₹5,000 are imposed...to be paid to the applicant along with arrears,” ruled the tribunal.
The applicant, Ganesh Chander, 62, stated that he had joined PGIMER as laboratory attendant on ad hoc basis for three months in 1977. He continued to work as lab attendant on ad hoc basis and was promoted to junior laboratory technician in the pay scale of ₹260 to ₹400 plus usual allowances in 1983.
He served PGIMER in the project for 12 years before his services were terminated in November 1989. Aggrieved by the termination of his services, he filed a civil writ petition in 1989 and the same was decided in 1995 by the Punjab and Haryana high court with the direction that the applicant be adjusted in PGIMER.
When he rejoined services, the applicant was appointed as restorer on contract basis in 1998.
PGIMER continued to appoint the applicant on a year-to-year basis without any break. The system continued till the date of the retirement of the applicant till November 2021.
However, he was informed that he will not be entitled to pensionary benefits.
In its reply, PGIMER stated that the applicant was neither a regular employee nor working against regular post at the institute.
Partly allowing the petition, the CAT ruled that the applicant served at PGIMER for almost 40 years, having joined in 1977 till his superannuation on November 30, 2021.
But the applicant was neither regularised despite judicial directions on two occasions nor have the respondents indicated if any effort was made to regularise the services, stated the tribunal.
“I agree that while regularisation is not a mode of appointment, yet in view of the court’s direction, dated August 12, 1998, the applicant should have been regularised on any suitable post available within the respondent department. Why the same was not done by the governing body/institute body has neither been explained by the respondent nor is there any mention of efforts, if any, made towards his regularisation. This silence of respondents is inexplicable,” ruled the quorum.
CAT also ruled that the applicant was to be treated on par with regular employees.