Dismissed¶49

Union of India v. K Balamurugan

Madras HC9 Apr 2025WP/12652/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; writ petitions dismissed; Union of India / ICMR / VCRC vs K.Balamurugan & E.Suresh; CAT Chennai Bench order dated 25.11.2024 in O.A.No.310/00040/2021 & O.A.No.310/00041/2021 upheld; termination of contract Staff Car Drivers set aside; Article 226 certiorari refused; State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 followed; ad-hoc/contract employees continued till regular recruitment; ban on recruitment of Staff Car Drivers; driver shortage for 21 vehicles; engagement on contract basis till regular appointments; no costs; W.M.P.Nos.14240 & 14249 of 2025 closed; decision dated 09.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Given the shortage of Drivers for the Centre's 21 vehicles, the pending request for 10 more Drivers, and the ban on recruitment of Staff Car Drivers, the Court found no justification for disengaging the respondents' services.

Union of India Vs K Balamurugan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners were justified in disengaging the services of the respondents (contract Staff Car Drivers).

¶37-38

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any specific directions from the 3rd petitioner to disengage the respondents, and given the Centre's dire need for Drivers and inability to recruit regular Drivers owing to the recruitment ban, the Tribunal had properly appreciated the facts and rightly set aside the order of termination.

¶48

Key takeaways

The Court upheld the Tribunal's direction that the respondents be engaged on contractual basis, as per the terms and conditions of their earlier orders of engagement, till regular appointments are made.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Madras (coram: M.S.Ramesh and N.Senthilkumar JJ.; order by M.S.Ramesh J.) dismisses W.P.Nos.12652 & 12657 of 2025 (with W.M.P.Nos.14240 & 14249 of 2025) filed by the Union of India, the Department of Health Research, the Director General ICMR, the Director VCRC and its Administrative Officer I/C, challenging the common order dated 25.11.2024 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.Nos.310/00040/2021 and 310/00041/2021. The Tribunal had partly allowed two contract Staff Car Drivers (K.Balamurugan and E.Suresh, appointed 21.12.2015 at Rs.16,571/- per month), whose services the 4th petitioner terminated citing ICMR outsourcing directions, by holding there were no specific ICMR directions for termination and directing continued contractual engagement till regular appointments. The High Court, noting the Centre's 21 vehicles, shortage of Drivers, the rejected request for 10 recruitments and the ban on recruitment of Staff Car Drivers, held the disengagement unjustified, endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 (ad-hoc employees to be continued till regular recruitment), upheld the setting aside of the termination and the direction to engage the respondents on contract basis per their earlier engagement terms till regular appointments, and dismissed the writ petitions with no costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.

¶1

W.P.Nos.12652 & 12657 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

W.P.Nos.12652 & 12657 of 2025

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.14240 & 14249 of 2025

¶8

1.Union of India. Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011.

¶9

2.The Secretary, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi-110 011.

¶10

3.Director General,

¶11

The Indian Council of Medical Research, Department of Health Research, Ansar Nagar, New Delhi-110 029.

¶12

4.The Director,

¶13

Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC), Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry-605 006.

¶14

5.The Administrative Officer I/C, Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC), Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry-605 006.

¶15

...Petitioners in both WPs

¶16

¶17

1/6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.Nos.12652 & 12657 of 2025

¶20

K.Balamurugan

¶21

...Respondent in W.P.No.12652/2025

¶22

E.Suresh

¶23

...Respondent in W.P.No.12657/2025

¶24

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai relating to its order dated 25.11.2024 in O.A.No.310/00040/2021 and O.A.No.310/00041/2021 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction.

¶25

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy (in both WPs)

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶28

Heard Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners. In

¶29

view of the final order to be passed in these Writ Petitions, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and hence, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶30

2. The common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai

¶31

Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), dated 25.11.2024, is assailed in both these Writ Petitions and hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

¶32

2/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.Nos.12652 & 12657 of 2025

¶35

3. The respondents, in both these Writ Petitions, were appointed on

¶36

21.12.2015 as Staff Car Drivers (Ordinary Grade) on contract and consolidated basis with a salary of Rs.16,571/- per month, after they had successfully passed the skill test, interview and medical test. Their services were periodically extended thereafter. On 31.12.2020, the 4 th petitioner herein had terminated the services of the respondents by informing that, as per the ICMR's directions, the engagement of a Driver should be hired on contract basis at consolidated salary through outsourcing and their services are no longer required beyond 31.01.2021. When the respondents had challenged the termination order dated 31.01.2020 before the Tribunal, their claim came to be partly-allowed, by holding that there are no specific directions of ICMR for terminating their services, especially when the centre had 21 vehicles and not sufficient Drivers. It was further held that the petitioners herein shall engage the respondents on contract basis, as per the terms and conditions of their earlier orders of engagement, till regular appointments are made.

¶37

4. The short issue that arises in these Writ Petition is as to whether the

¶38

petitioners herein were justified in disengaging the services of the respondents herein. Earlier when the 4 th petitioner herein had sought for orders from the 3 rd petitioner herein for regularization of the services of the 3/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.Nos.12652 & 12657 of 2025

¶41

respondents, along with another Staff Driver, their request was rejected by the 3 rd petitioner on 27.09.2018, by stating that there was a ban on recruitment of Staff Car Drivers and therefore, the services may not be regularized. It was also pointed that the proposal of the 4 th petitioner herein to recruit 10 Drivers was also rejected, by holding that there is ban on recruitment of Staff Car Drivers. This apart, the letter also stated that if the engagement of a Driver is necessary, in that case, the services of a Driver may be hired on contractual basis through consolidated basis on outsourcing. Apart from the aforesaid directions, there was no specific directions for disengaging the services of the respondents herein.

¶42

5. We find from the order of the Tribunal that in view of shortage of Drivers for the 21 vehicles in the 4 th respondent Centre, a request was made for recruitment of 10 Drivers, apart from regularizing the services of 3 Drivers, including the respondents herein. When that being the case and also in view of the ban on recruitment of Staff Car Drivers, we fail to understand as to why the services of the respondents should be disengaged.

¶43

6. The Tribunal had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Piara Singh

¶44

and Others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 for the proposition that, till a

¶45

4/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.Nos.12652 & 12657 of 2025

¶48

regular employee is recruited, the services of the ad-hoc employee should be continued and he can be replaced only by another regular employee. In the absence of any specific directions of the 3 rd petitioner to disengage the services of the respondents herein and also by taking into account that the 4th petitioner Centre is in dire need of Drivers and will not be in a position to recruit the regular Drivers, in view of the ban on recruitment, we hereby hold that the Tribunal had properly appreciated the facts of the cases and set aside the order of termination of the respondents herein. We also uphold the direction of the Tribunal to engage the respondents on contractual basis, as per the terms and conditions of their earlier orders of engagement, till regular appointments are made.

¶49

7. In this background, we find that there are no valid reasons to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and accordingly, both these Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶50

(M.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09.04.2025

¶51

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

¶52

5/6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.Nos.12652 & 12657 of 2025

¶55

M.S.RAMESH,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.