In a significant decision impacting public employment, the Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of a group of nurses, directing that they be recognized as regular employees. The case, titled Rakesh Lal Meena and Others v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2019), involved ten nurses who have been employed on short-term contracts by the Union Territory of Daman & Diu since 2006. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, who presided over the case, delivered their judgment on October 25, 2024, providing the petitioners a decisive victory.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, represented by Advocates Ramesh Ramamurthy and Saikumar Ramamurthy, were selected in 2006 after a thorough recruitment process involving a selection committee. Although the selection adhered to the recruitment rules, the nurses were appointed on short-term contracts with renewals. This prolonged contractual status led to the nurses filing for regularization of their employment, arguing that they were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees under the Goa Government (Directorate of Health Services) Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted Class III Recruitment Rules, 1967, which were applicable at the time of their selection.
The respondents, represented by Advocate Harsh P. Dedhia, countered that the appointments were contract-based from the start, evidenced by the language in their appointment letters and the advertisement, which specified the roles as contractual. They argued that the petitioners could not claim regular status based on these initial terms.
Key Legal Issues
The court’s analysis focused on whether the nurses’ appointments should be classified as regular or remain contractual. The primary legal questions included:
1. Validity of Contractual Status: Whether the petitioners’ appointments, following a due selection process and meeting all recruitment rules, could be classified as regular despite the designation as “contractual” in appointment letters.
2. Compliance with Service Rules: Whether the selection and appointment process met the standards set by the recruitment rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
3. Arbitrary and Unfair Labor Practices: Whether keeping the petitioners on a contractual basis for over 18 years despite meeting the qualifications constituted an unfair labor practice.
Court’s Findings and Observations
The court examined the recruitment and service conditions under the Service Rules of 1967 and emphasized that these rules did not distinguish between regular and contract-based posts. It held that the petitioners, having met the age, qualification, and selection criteria outlined in the rules, were “rightfully entitled to be treated as regular employees.” In a powerful observation, the court remarked:
“If the regular selection process has been followed in terms of the provisions available in the Service Rules, 1967, merely because initial appointment order of the petitioners described the appointment to be on contract basis, it will not render the appointment of the petitioners to be on contract basis or irregular in any manner.”
The court highlighted that since the petitioners had been selected for clear vacancies through a proper selection process, their appointment could not arbitrarily be treated as contractual. The court criticized the Central Administrative Tribunal’s earlier decision, which had dismissed the nurses’ claims, for relying too heavily on the contractual language in the appointment letters instead of the selection procedures and rules that supported a regular appointment.
Decision
The High Court directed the Union Territory administration to regularize the employment of the nurses and accord them the full benefits applicable to regular employees, including salary adjustments, seniority, and entitlement to promotions. The detailed order specified:
– Regularization and Benefits: Petitioners 1 to 8 are to be treated as regular staff nurses and are eligible for all related benefits, including pay adjustments and seniority.
– Consideration for Regularization: Petitioners 9 and 10, while not immediately regularized, are to be considered for regularization given their long-standing service.
– Expedited Implementation: The court ordered that the regularization process and pay adjustments be completed within six weeks.
