No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 55
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 18 July 2025
Pronounced on: 10 November 2025
+ W.P.(C) 2117/2025, CM APPLs. 10024/2025, 10025/2025,
10026/2025, 38694/2025 & 41795/2025
PAWAN SHARMA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Hetvi Patel, Mr. Atul Kumar
Srivastav, Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, Mr.
Umesh Kumar, Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr.
Kamran Khwaja, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
AND ORS …...Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms. Aliza
Alam, Advs. for GNCTD
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr. Shashank
Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 2146/2025, CM APPLs. 10096/2025, 10097/2025 &
10098/2025
NARENDRA SHARMA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Hetvi Patel, Mr. Atul Kumar
Srivastav, Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, Mr.
Umesh Kumar, Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr.
Kamran Khwaja, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms. Aliza
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 2 of 55
Alam, Advs. for GNCTD
+ W.P.(C) 2148/2025, CM APPLs. 10101/2025, 10102/2025 &
10103/2025
VIKAS YADAV AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Hetvi Patel, Mr. Atul Kumar
Srivastav, Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, Mr.
Umesh Kumar, Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr.
Kamran Khwaja, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms.
Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Aveeraj Sharma, Ms. Priya
Shukla and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 2174/2025, CM APPLs. 10277/2025, 10278/2025 &
10279/2025
ANGOM SUNANDA DEVI AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Hetvi Patel, Mr. Atul Kumar
Srivastav, Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, Mr.
Umesh Kumar, Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr.
Kamran Khwaja, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr.
Shashank Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 3008/2025, CM APPLs. 14184/2025 & 17751/2025
PANKAJ SHUKLA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, Mr.
Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar and
Ms. Anamika Thakur, Advs.
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 3 of 55
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms. Aliza
Alam, Advs. for GNCTD
+ W.P.(C) 8538/2025, CM APPLs. 36987/2025, 36988/2025 &
36989/2025
ANITA V YOYAKIM AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Hetvi Patel, Mr. Atul Kumar
Srivastav, Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, Mr.
Umesh Kumar, Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr.
Kamran Khwaja, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms. Aliza
Alam, Advs. for GNCTD
+ W.P.(C) 7518/2025, CM APPLs. 33601/2025, 39832/2025 &
38632/2025
DELHI STATE CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES
AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Filza Moonis and Mr. Mohit Garg,
Advs.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms. Aliza
Alam, Advs. for GNCTD
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr. Shashank
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 4 of 55
Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 9430/2025, CM APPLs. 39845/2025, 39846/2025,
39847/2025 & 39848/2025
PREETI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Hetvi Patel, Mr. Atul Kumar
Srivastav, Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, Mr.
Umesh Kumar, Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr.
Kamran Khwaja, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms. Aliza
Alam, Advs. for GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
% JUDGMENT
10.11.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
The law
1. Four judgments, rendered by Hon’ble Division Benches of the
Supreme Court within the past two years, have fundamentally redrawn
the horizons of service jurisprudence insofar as they deal with the
rights of persons who have rendered uninterrupted, blemish-free
service for long, following initial appointments on “casual”,
“contractual”, “ad hoc” or “temporary” basis. The Supreme Court has
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 5 of 55
held, in no uncertain terms, that these labels do not matter anymore
and that continuous blemish-free service, following a process of
recruitment which is not illegal, ipso facto entitles such appointees to
regularization. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding
that, in such cases, it does not matter whether the posts against which
the appointments were made are temporary or permanent, or even
whether the appointees possess the requisite educational qualifications
for the posts and has recently expanded the paradigm even to issuance
of directions to the respondents to create posts on which the
appointees would be regularized.
2. These writ petitions are squarely covered by the above
decisions. As such, before adverting to the facts of the present
petitions, we deem it appropriate to examine the aforesaid four
decisions chronologically.
3. Vinod Kumar v Union of India
1
3.1 The appellants before the Supreme Court, in this case, were
appointed as Accounts Clerks under a temporary scheme based
arrangement, albeit after a selection process involving written test and
viva voce. On the date when the judgment was rendered by the
Supreme Court, they had been working continuously on the said posts
for over 25 years. They petitioned the Central Administrative
Tribunal
2
, seeking regularization. The Tribunal, as well as thereafter
the High Court, dismissed the pleas of the appellants on the ground
1
(2024) 9 SCC 327
2
“Tribunal” hereinafter
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 6 of 55
that their appointments were temporary and made under a specific
scheme. Reliance was placed, for the purpose, on the well-known
decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka v Uma Devi
3
.
3.2 The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and
the High Court, reasoning thus:
“5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court
believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof
cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment
when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly
over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the
capacities of regular employees, performing duties
indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their
selection through a process that mirrors that of regular
recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary
and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover,
the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a
Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service
for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary
nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such
temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of
their employment status.
6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi by the High
Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have
continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at
the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights
that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous
service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for
vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection
process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes
their case from the appointments through back door entry as
discussed in Umadevi.
7. The judgment in Umadevi also distinguished between
“irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance
of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly
in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be
3
(2006) 4 SCC 1
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 7 of 55
said to have been made illegally if they had followed the
procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present case. Para 53
of Umadevi is reproduced hereunder:
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v S.V.
Narayanappa
4
, R.N. Nanjundappa v T. Thimmiah
5
,
and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka
6
and referred
to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more
but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of
such employees may have to be considered on merits in the
light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases
abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that
context, the Union of India, the State Governments and
their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a
one-time measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years
or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of
orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further
ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those
vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases
where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now
employed. The process must be set in motion within six
months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened
based on this judgment, but there should be no further
bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising
or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the
constitutional scheme.”
(emphasis in original)
8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds
merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service
conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from
temporary to regular status. The failure to recognise the
substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin
to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity,
fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.”
4
AIR 1967 SC 1071
5
(1972) 1 SCC 409
6
(1979) 4 SCC 507
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 8 of 55
3.3 The takeaway
The following propositions emerge from this decision:
(i) What matters is the “essence of employment”.
(ii) The rights flowing therefrom cannot be determined by
the initial terms of appointment, where the actual course of
employment has evolved significantly over time.
(iii) In assessing the rights of the employees, in such cases,
the relevant considerations would be
(a) continuous service of the employees in the
capacities of regular employees,
(b) performance of duties by such employees which
are indistinguishable from those performed by holders of
permanent posts and
(c) selection of the employees by a process which
mirrors regular recruitment.
(iv) The substantive rights of the employees, which have
evolved over a period of time, cannot be perpetually denied by
relying on non-compliance with procedural formalities at the
commencement of employment.
(v) The substantive rights of such employees accrue over a
considerable period through continuous service.
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 9 of 55
(vi) Even if appointments in such cases were not made strictly
in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedures, they
could not be treated as illegal if they had followed the procedure
of regular employment such as conduct of written examinations
and interviews.
3.4 Following the above reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the
appellants before it were entitled to regular status and that failure to
regularize them would run counter to the principles of equity and
fairness. The respondents before the Supreme Court were, therefore,
directed to regularize the appellants within three months.
4. Jaggo v Union of India
7
4.1 The appellants in Jaggo were safaiwalas and khallasis, engaged
by the Central Water Commission
8
on part-time ad hoc terms in 1993,
1998 and 1999 for cleaning and maintaining offices of the CWC and
for performing duties of gardening, dusting and ancillary maintenance.
They were, therefore, performing essential housekeeping work
necessary for keeping the offices of the CWC functioning. The
appellants approached the Tribunal seeking regularisation. The
Tribunal dismissed their OA, on the ground that they had not been
engaged against regular vacancies and did not have, to their credit,
sufficient full-time service of 240 days per year to entitle them to
regularization. Following the judgment of the Tribunal, the services of
the appellants were terminated on 27 October 2018. The appellants,
7
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
8
“CWC” hereinafter
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 10 of 55
therefore, approached the High Court seeking reinstatement and
regularization. The High Court also dismissed the writ petition,
observing that they
(i) were doing part-time work,
(ii) had not been appointed against sanctioned posts,
(iii) did not have, to their credit, sufficient full-time service
needed for regularization and
(iv) did not possess the minimum educational qualifications
for regular appointment.
The appellants challenged the decision of the High Court by way of
SLP to the Supreme Court.
4.2 The following passages from the judgment of the Supreme
Court set out its ratio decidendi:
“15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for
outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial
proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing
maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions.
Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also
underscored the respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge the
appellants' rightful claims to regularization.
16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long
tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point
during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues
regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their
services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their
remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which
was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance.
The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service
appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.
17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications,
we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the
appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 11 of 55
gardening—does not inherently mandate formal educational
prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that
were never central to their engagement or the performance of their
duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by
their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in
other cases of regularization. The appellants' long-standing
satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to
discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal
educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.
*****
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles
were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of
regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended
periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant
equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of
this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to
manifest injustice and must be rectified.
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra)
does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long
years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the
State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent
backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were
not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had
served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions
for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane
resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and
unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a
regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-
hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In
a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v Union of
India, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be
used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose
appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same
duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable
period in the capacity of the regular employee.
*****
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label
of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken
after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels
and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term
service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or
illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original terms did not
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 12 of 55
explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly
introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
*****
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted
forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary
contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs,
they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term
obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels : Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to
the functioning of an institution are often labeled as
“temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives
workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing identical
tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression : Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their contributions being
equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of
exploited workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as
pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave,
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 13 of 55
even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social
security subjects them and their families to undue hardship,
especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail
the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered
to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are
often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of
long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged
in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than
ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time
measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately
reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to
procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the
judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization
is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's
spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees
who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles
are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the organization to
legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring
fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold
the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international standards and sets a
positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby
contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country.
(Italics supplied)
4.3 The takeaway
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 14 of 55
Thus, from the above passages, the propositions laid down by the
Supreme Court, and the reasoning of the Supreme Court in allowing
the appellants’ appeals may be set out thus:
(i) Long standing and uninterrupted service of the appellants
could not be brushed aside by labeling their initial appointment
as part-time or contractual.
(ii) The essence of the appellants’ employment had to be
seen in the light of
(a) their sustained contribution,
(b) the integral nature of their work, and
(c) the fact that their entry was not through any illegal
or surreptitious route.
(iii) The appellants were holding essential and indispensable
functions related to the basic operational functionality of the
CWC.
(iv) The appellants had rendered continuous and
uninterrupted service for 10-20 years. Their re-engagement was
not sporadic or temporary in nature. They, therefore, were
performing regular and recurrent service, akin to the
responsibilities associated with the sanctioned posts. That the
appellants’ services were indispensable was also manifest from
the fact that the respondent did not engage any other personnel to
perform the tasks being performed by the appellants.
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 15 of 55
(v) In such circumstances, the respondent could not be
permitted to contend that the posts held by the appellants were
not regular, as the work performed by them was perennial and
essential to the functioning of the CWC offices.
(vi) Recurrent nature of the duties performed by the
appellants necessitated their classification as regular posts,
irrespective of how their initial engagements labeled.
(vii) The subsequent outsourcing by the respondent of the
services being performed by the appellants to private agencies
also demonstrated the inherent need for the said services.
(viii) In such circumstances, the abrupt termination of the
appellants without notice was arbitrary and violative of the
principles of natural justice.
(ix) Contractual employees were also entitled to a hearing
before any adverse action was taken against them, particularly
where their service records were unblemished.
(x) The consistent performance of the appellants over a long
period solidified their claim for regularisation. Their services
were extended continuously.
(xi) In such circumstances, the respondent’s plea that the
appellants did not possess the requisite educational qualifications
was unsustainable. Moreover, the appellants were performing
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 16 of 55
Group-D work, for which educational qualifications were not
central.
(xii) Besides, persons with less service than the appellants had
been regularised, thereby also resulting in discrimination.
(xiii) The decision in Uma Devi was never intended to
penalize employees with long years of service, performing
necessary functions of the organization. It was intended to
prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments.
(xiv) Prolonged, continuous and unblemished service of the
employees, performing essential tasks, transformed the initially
temporary employment into a scenario demanding fair
regularisation.
(xv) As was held in Vinod Kumar, procedural formalities
could not, in such circumstances, be used to deny regularisation
of service to employees whose employment was termed
“temporary”, but who performed the same duties as were
performed by regular employees, over an extended period.
(xvi) In such circumstances, the Court was required to look
beyond the surface level of the appointment and to consider
(a) the realities of the employment,
(b) continuous and long-term service of the employee,
(c) the indispensable nature of their duties and
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 17 of 55
(d) the absence of mala fides or illegalities in their
initial appointment.
(xvii) In such circumstances, refusing regularisation to the
employees because their original terms of employment did not
envisage regularisation, or because of belated outsourcing of
same work, was contrary to the principles of fairness and
equality.
(xviii) Uma Devi was often misinterpreted and misapplied to
deny legitimate claims to regularisation, of long-serving
employees.
(xix) In the case before the Supreme Court, claims of
employees had been rejected even where their appointments were
not illegal, but merely lacked adherence to procedural
formalities.
(xx) Uma Devi had, thus, been weaponized against employees
who had rendered indispensable service over decades.
4.4 Following the above reasoning, the Supreme Court quashed the
termination order of the appellant before it, directed that they be
reinstated and regularized forthwith, albeit back wages, but with
continuity of service.
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 18 of 55
5. Shripal v Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
9
5.1 This was an appeal which emanated out of proceedings under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5.2 The workmen before the Supreme Court had been engaged as
Gardeners in the Horticulture Department of the Ghaziabad Nagar
Nigam
10
since 1998 and 1999. They continuously discharged
horticultural and maintenance duties, though no formal appointment
letters were ever issued to them. In 2004, they raised an industrial
dispute seeking regularisation. While the proceedings were pending,
several of the workmen were terminated orally in mid July 2005. The
State Government referred the disputes relating to regularisation of the
workmen, as well as legality of their termination, to the Ghaziabad
Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court passed contradictory
orders, holding the termination illegal in some cases and holding that
the workmen had no right to regularisation in others.
5.3 Cross writ petitions were filed by the GNN and the workmen
before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court, holding that
several disputed issues existed, partially modified the award of the
Labour Court, directing re-engagement of the workmen on daily
wages with pay equivalent to minimum of the regular pay scale of
Gardeners, as well as consideration of their regularisation in future.
5.4 The judgment of the High Court was also challenged before the
9
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221
10
“GNN”, hereinafter
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 19 of 55
Supreme Court both by GNN and the workmen.
5.5 Before the Supreme Court, the workmen contended that they
had continuously discharged horticultural and maintenance duties
under direct supervision and control of the GNN and that their
longstanding and continuous employment entitled them to
regularisation. It was also asserted that their termination was illegal.
As against this, the GNN contended that
(i) no proper selection process had been followed to appoint
the workmen,
(ii) their appointment was not against sanctioned posts,
(iii) all horticulture work was carried out through independent
contractors appointed via tender,
(iv) in view of the decision in Uma Devi, no daily wager
could claim a right to permanent absorption without adherence
to constitutional requirements and in the absence of duly
sanctioned vacancies, and
(v) the workmen had not demonstrated that they had
completed 240 days of continuous work in any calendar year.
5.6 The Supreme Court held as under:
“9. On a plain reading of this section, we can deduce that any
unilateral alteration in service conditions, including termination, is
impermissible during the pendency of such proceedings unless
prior approval is obtained from the appropriate authority. The
record in the present case does not indicate that the Respondent
Employer ever sought or was granted the requisite approval.
Prima facie, therefore, this conduct reflects a deliberate attempt to
circumvent the lawful claims of the workmen, particularly when
their dispute over regularization and wages remained sub judice.
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 20 of 55
10. The Respondent Employer consistently labelled the
Appellant Workmen as casual employees (or workers engaged
through an unnamed contractor), yet there is no material proof of
adherence to Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
which mandates a proper notice or wages in lieu thereof as well as
retrenchment compensation. In this context, whether an individual
is classified as regular or temporary is irrelevant as retrenchment
obligations under the Act must be met in all cases attracting
Section 6N. Any termination thus effected without statutory
safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly.
11. Furthermore, the Employer's stance that there was never a
direct employer-employee relationship is wholly unsubstantiated.
If, in fact, the Appellant Workmen had been engaged solely
through a contractor, the Employer would have necessarily
maintained some form of contract documentation, license copies,
or invoices substantiating the contractor's role in hiring, paying,
and supervising these workers. However, no such documents have
been placed on record. Additionally, the Employer has failed to
establish that wages were ever paid by any entity other than its own
Horticulture Department, which strongly indicates direct control
and supervision over the Workmen's day-to-day tasks is a hallmark
of an employer-employee relationship. Had there been a legitimate
third-party contractor, one would expect to see details such as
tender notices, contract agreements, attendance records maintained
by the contractor, or testimony from the contractor's
representatives. The absence of these crucial elements undermines
the Employer's claim of outsourced engagement. In fact, it appears
that the Workmen were reporting directly to the Horticulture
Department officials, receiving instructions on their duties, and
drawing wages issued under the Municipality's authority. This
pattern of direct oversight and wage disbursement substantially
negates the narrative that they were “contractor's personnel.”
Consequently, the discontinuation of their services carried out
without compliance with statutory obligations pertaining to notice,
retrenchment compensation, or approval under Section 6E of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, stands on precarious ground. The
very foundation of the Employer's defense (i.e., lack of an
employer-employee relationship) is not supported by any credible
or contemporaneous evidence.
12. The evidence, including documentary material and
undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen performed
duties integral to the Respondent Employer's municipal functions
specifically the upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city
beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than
sporadic or project-based. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh
recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to long-
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 21 of 55
serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of
Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion
that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent.
13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general
upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners
but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the
Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour
practice. The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly
emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded when
workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those
of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the
Employer's direct supervision belie any notion that these were
mere short-term casual engagements.
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi to
contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim
permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing
such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself
distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those
that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if
they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot
serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for
years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.
Given the record which shows no true contractor-based
arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff
the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot
justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15 It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously
rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning
more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced
in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records—despite
directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-
established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly
disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and
legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year
after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement…….
*****
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's
discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of
the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that
their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and
6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 22 of 55
engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be
relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal
budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration,
such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations
or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations
cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.”
(emphasis supplied)
5.7 The Supreme Court also followed its earlier decision in Jaggo.
5.8 Following the above discussion, the Supreme Court directed
reinstatement of the workmen and further directed the GNN to initiate
a fair and transparent process for regularizing them within six months
from the date of reinstatement, considering the fact that they have
performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts.
5.9 The takeaway
From this decision, the following propositions emerge:
(i) Where persons have been appointed and continuously
worked on their posts uninterruptedly for long periods of time
without any complaint, it was unconstitutional to terminate
them or not to regularize their services, especially where the
work undertaken by them was perennial and essential in nature.
(ii) In such cases, the plea that no proper selection process
had been followed or that the workmen had not been appointed
against any sanctioned posts, was not available to the
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 23 of 55
establishment.
(iii) Uma Devi did not militate against directing
regularisation of the services of the workmen in such a case.
(iv) Nor were the workmen in such a case required to
establish that they had completed 240 days of continuous
service in any year.
(v) It was also not open to the establishment to contend, in
such cases, that there was any ban on recruitment.
6. Dharam Singh v State of UP
11
6.1 In Dharam Singh, the Supreme Court carried the principles
laid down in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo and Shripal a notch further.
6.2 Dharam Singh opened with the following exordium:
“When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands
to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are
placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with
fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about
rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad
hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of
financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have
kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that
public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned
decision making, and respect for the dignity of work.”
6.3 The workmen in Dharam Singh had been employed as peon/
attendant and driver, on daily wage basis in the UP Higher Education
11
2025 SCC Online SC 1735
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 24 of 55
Services Commission
12
.
6.4 On 24 October 1991, the UPHESC resolved to create 14 Class 3
and Class 4 posts and sought sanction from the State Government.
This request was reiterated by the UPHESC on 16 October 1999. The
request was rejected by the State Government on 11 November 1999
citing financial constraints.
6.5 The workmen thereupon approached the High Court of
Allahabad by way of a writ petition, seeking a mandamus to the State
to sanction/create 14 posts in Class 3/Class 4 for the UPHESC in
terms of the resolution of the UPHESC and to regularize the workmen
against the said posts.
6.6 This petition was disposed of, by the High Court on 24 April
2002 with a direction to the UPHESC to send a fresh recommendation
for sanction of appropriate Group C/Group D posts and a direction to
the State to take a fresh decision thereon. In the meanwhile, it was
directed that the appellants be paid the minimum of the applicable pay
scale.
6.7 Pursuant thereto, the UPHESC sent a fresh recommendation on
25 November 2003, which was again declined by the State, citing
financial grounds and ban on creation of new posts.
6.8 This decision was again carried by the workmen to the High
Court which dismissed the writ petition on 19 May 2009 on the
12
“UPHESC”, hereinafter
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 25 of 55
ground that there were no rules for regularization in the UPHESC and
that no vacancies existed in which the workmen could be
accommodated and the prayer for regularization was, in any case,
impermissible in view of the law laid down in Uma Devi. This
decision was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in
appeal observing that the workmen were daily wagers and there was
no provision in the Rules of the UPHESC envisaging their
regularization and no vacancy existed in which they could be
accommodated.
6.9 In these circumstances, the Supreme Court identified the issue
that arose before it for consideration thus, in para 6:
“6. The question before us is whether the High Court erred in
failing to adjudicate the appellants' principal challenge to the
State's refusals to sanction posts and treating the matter as a mere
plea for regularization, and, if so, given the appellants' long and
undisputed service, what appropriate relief ought to follow from
this Court.”
6.10 The Supreme Court held the approach of the High Court to be
unacceptable. The relevant paragraphs from the decision of the
Supreme Court may be reproduced hereunder:
“8. The State's refusal of 11.11.1999 cites “financial
constraints” and the subsequent decision of 25.11.2003 (taken
after the High Court's direction to reconsider) adverts to financial
crisis and a ban on creation of posts. Neither decision engages
with relevant considerations placed on record, namely, the
Commission's 1991 resolution and repeated proposals, the
acknowledged administrative exigencies of a recruiting body
handling large cycles, the continuous deployment of these very
hands for years, and the existence of attendant work that is
primarily perennial rather than sporadic. While creation of posts is
primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts
cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. We
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 26 of 55
believe that a non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of
“financial constraints”, ignoring functional necessity and the
employer's own longstanding reliance on daily wagers to
discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of
reasonableness expected of a model public institution.
9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work
performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of
applications, dispatch and office support, and driving, has been
continuous and integral to the Commission's functioning since
their engagement between 1989 and 1992. The Commission itself
moved for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of
fourteen daily wagers including the appellants. That consistent
internal demand, coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of the
appellants' labour on regular office hours, fortifies the conclusion
that the duties are perennial. To continue extracting such work for
decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength is a position
that cannot be sustained.
10. It must be noted that the premise of “no vacancy” is, in any
event, contradicted by the evidence on record. An RTI response of
22.01.2010 received from the office of Respondent No. 2 indicated
existence of Class-IV vacancies. Furthermore, I.A. No. 109487 of
2020 filed before this Court by the appellants specifically pointed
to at least five vacant Class-IV/Guard posts and one vacant Driver
post within the establishment. That application also set out the
names of similarly situated daily wagers who were regularised
earlier within the same Commission. No rebuttal was filed to the
I.A. The unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison with
those who received regularisation materially undermine the High
Court's conclusion that no vacancy existed and reveal unequal
treatment vis-à-vis persons similarly placed. Selective
regularisation in the same establishment, while continuing the
appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties
with those regularized, is a clear violation of equity.
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by
the High Court on Umadevi (supra) to non-suit the appellants is
misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (supra), the challenge before us is not
an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public
employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to
sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of
need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On
the other hand, Umadevi (supra) draws a distinction between
illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not
endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work
itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its
house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v Union of
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 27 of 55
India and in Shripal v Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have
emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (supra) cannot be deployed
as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”,
the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity
where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The
principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present
case.
*****
12. We also note the Commission's affidavit filed in
21.04.2025 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025,
wherein reference has been made to a supervening reorganisation
in 2024, whereby the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission
was merged into the U.P. Education Services Selection
Commission and, by a Government Order of 05.07.2024, certain
Group-C posts were sanctioned while Class -IV/Driver
requirements were proposed to be met through outsourcing. We
must point out however, that supervening structural change cannot
extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings. The successor
body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities
and obligations arising from the prior regime. More
fundamentally, a later policy to outsource Class-IV/Driver
functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals,
nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose
continuous services the establishment relied for decades.
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (supra)
and Shripal (supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient
shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair
engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The
Commission's further contention that the appellants are not “full-
time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also
does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted
precisely because of the long history of engagement and the
pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates
rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon
a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined
relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically
assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that
view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the
11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision
during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by
the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High
Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in
refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 28 of 55
2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The
Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by
affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal
challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the
Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about
“rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of
arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite
perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the
impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's
refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern
the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of Class-
III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work,
are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the
State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments)
is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It
cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the
most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day
after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that
reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The
long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels
corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the
promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a
place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides
fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.”
6.11 Following the above discussion, the Supreme Court issued the
following directions in para 19 of the report:
“19(i). Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts:
All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002,
the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation
by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning
posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the
successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection
Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the
corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-
IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or
preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at
not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post,
with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 29 of 55
shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as
per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count
from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall
be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and
admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for
the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for
the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of
regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts
already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted.
The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in
default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per
annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already
retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002
until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under
clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other
terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid
within three months of this Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and
any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal
representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii)
up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues
recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of
this Judgment.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the
Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or
the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of
compliance before this Court within four months of this
Judgment.”
6.12 The justification for issuing the above directions, which were
unquestionably drastic in nature was thus provided in para 20 of the
judgment:
“20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because,
case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met
with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and
administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those
who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we
have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 30 of 55
directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed
timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer,
the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise
its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for
lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and
spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but
rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and
dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here
comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization,
subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance,
is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes
and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in
administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
6.13 The Takeaway
6.13.1 Besides reiterating the principles already contained in its earlier
decisions in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo and Shripal, the Supreme Court in
Dharam Singh went a step further and in fact granted the relief,
sought by the appellants in that case, for a direction to the Executive
Authorities to sanction posts and regularize the appellants against the
said posts. This is a radical development in the law as, normally, the
power to sanction posts vests exclusively in the Executive, and no
mandamus can issue to an Executive Authority to create posts. The
significance of this direction is underscored by the fact that, in Union
of India v Ilmo Devi
13
, one of the judgments which, in another
similar case, was cited by us as contrary to the principles enunciated
in Jaggo, the Supreme Court held against the employees precisely on
the ground that the Court could not direct creation of posts. By
endorsing the prayers of the appellants in Dharam Singh seeking
issuance of such a direction, therefore, the Supreme Court has clearly
13
(2021) 20 SCC 290
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 31 of 55
heralded development of the law beyond Ilmo Devi.
6.13.2 The Supreme Court has also, in fact, noticed this fact in para 8
of the judgment. In the said paragraph, the Supreme Court observed
that “while creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the
refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for
arbitrariness”. Thus, in a case in which the appellants had been
working since long, after being appointed on contractual basis, with
their contracts being periodically extended, and when they were
rendering essential functions, the Supreme Court went to the extent of
directing creation of posts to accommodate and regularize the
appellants.
6.13.3 Another important take away from the judgment in Dharam
Singh is the rejection, by the Supreme Court, of the contention of the
State, that the appellants had been continuing on their posts by virtue
of interim orders passed by the Court. This is important because the
respondents, even before us, have advanced an identical contention.
The Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, negatived the contention,
stating that interim protection had been granted precisely because the
employees concerned had rendered unblemished service for long
periods of time. The interim relief granted was, therefore, a
recognition of the rights of the employees, and could not be cited as a
ground to question their rights.
The Facts
7. The petitioners in all these cases were appointed pursuant to
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 32 of 55
identical advertisements inviting applications from persons who
desired appointment as paramedical/nursing staff. Their appointment
orders were also largely similar. By way of an example, the
advertisement (to the extent relevant) and a sample appointment order
in WP (C) 2174/2025
14
, may be reproduced thus:
Advertisement
“NOTICE FOR WALK IN INTERVIEW
Application from eligible candidates are invited for
engagement of the following Paramedical/Nursing Staff purely on
contract basis for a period of 11 Months on consolidated monthly
remuneration (inclusive of all allowances). Interviews will be held
in the Conference Room. Office of the Medical Superintendent, Dr.
Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan, Karkardooma, Delhi-32. The
appointment is purely on contract basis initially for a period of 11
months Or till regular candidate joins the post, whichever is
earlier. The candidates can register their names with the office of
the MS, as per the specimen application from given in along with
the advertisement, for interview from 24-01-08 to 31-01-08
between 02:00 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. no application will be
entertained after scheduled time and date. The name of posts,
qualification required, remuneration (consolidated) and dates of
interviews are given as under:-
S.
No
Name
of post
Consolid-
ated
remunera-
tion per
month
(inclusive
of all
allowanc-
es)
Required
qualification
No
of
post
Date of
interview
1. STAFF
NURSE
Age
Limit
below
32
years
₹ 10575/- 1. Matriculat-
ion OR its
equivalent
qualification.
2. ‘A’ Grade
certificate in
nursing from
54 07-02-08
&
08-02-08
14
Angom Sunanda Devi and Ors v GNCTD and Ors
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 33 of 55
recognized
institution.
3. Certificate
in Midwifery.
4. Should be
able to speak /
understand Hindi.
5. Should be
registered with
State Nursing
Council.
Offer letter of appointment
“GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
DR HEDGEWAR AROGYA SANSTHAN
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI -110032
No.F/1/25/2008/SN/DHAS/Estt./2493 Dated 01/03/08
OFFER LETTER
Consequent upon the interviews conducted for engagement of Staff
Nurses on contract basis for Dr. Hedgewar Aroga Sansthan,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110 032, Shri / Smt / Ms. Angom Sunanda
Devi hereby offered appointment as Staff Nurse on contract basis
on consolidated emoluments of Rs.10575/- per month
The engagement of the contract staff will be subjected to
the following terms and conditions :
1. The said engagement is purely on contract basis for a
period of 11 (eleven) months only and it shall be deemed to have
automatically come to an end on expiry of the said engagement
period or till a regular incumbent joins the post, whichever is
earlier.
2. This engagement on contract basis will not confer any right
for regular appointment to the post and may be terminated even
when a regular post is lying vacant.
3. The contractual engagement is purely on temporary basis
and it can be terminated by the employer during any time of the
agreement without assigning any reason or giving any notice.
4. The candidate shall have to give one month notice or
deposit an amount equivalent to one month remuneration if he / she
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 34 of 55
wishes to terminate the contract.
5. The candidate will sincerely perform the duties assigned to
him / her by the Hospital Authority to the satisfaction of the
Hospital Authority. He / she shall remain polite and courteous to
the staff members, patients and their attendants and shall abide by
the rules and regulations of the Hospital.
6. Any unauthorized absence from duty for more than five
days will lead to termination of the contract.
7. The candidate will not be entitled to any other financial
benefits viz. allowances, perks, bonus, medical reimbursement etc.
other than the monthly remuneration (tax) will be deducted at
source on taxable income). He / She shall not be entitled to any
other facilities as provided to the employees appointed on regular
basis or otherwise.
8. It will not be the responsibility of the Employer to provide
accommodation to the candidate. The candidate shall not be
entitled for any government accommodation.
9. Leave admissibility to the employee during the contract
period
i. Earned leave will be granted @ two and half days
per month of completed service.
ii. The leave will be granted in full days only.
iii . Maternity leave as per Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
iv. Leave encashment on termination of agreement only
v. No other leave is admissible.
In case the offer of appointment is acceptable on the above
terms and conditions, Shri / Smt./Ms. Angom Sunanda Devi shall
submit acceptance to the Med. Superintendent, DHAS, on or
before 10.03.08, failing which it will be presumed that he / she is
not interested in this offer and treated this offer letter as cancelled.
DHAS is not responsible for any postal delay. Engagement of the
candidate for the post shall be subjected to production of medical
fitness certificate.
Shri / Smt. / Ms. Angom Sunanda Devi shall bring all
relevant documents in original for verification at the time of joint.
Sd/-
(DR. P. RAJU)
ADDL. MEDICAL SUPDT./ HOO”
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 35 of 55
8. The dates of initial appointments, the posts on which the
petitioners were appointed and the details of their service, may thus be
provided in tabular form:
Pawan Sharma v GNCTD - WP (C) 2117/2025
S.No Name Designation Date of
joining
Extended
till
Tenure
1 Pawan Sharma Nursing staff 01.05.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
2 Neetesh Kumar Nursing staff 09.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
3 Mukesh Kumar
Swarankar
Nursing staff 19.09.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
4 Sandeep Kumar Nursing staff 30.06.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
5 Arun Kumar
Mishra
Nursing staff 28.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
6 Dinesh Kumar
Saini
Nursing staff 27.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
7 Raj Kumar
Guupta
Nursing staff 21.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
8 Satveer Singh Nursing staff 01.06.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
9 Batti Lal Meena Nursing staff 24.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
10 Mareena Sara
Ninan
Nursing staff 10.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
11 Hariom Gupta Nursing staff 14.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
12 Laltesh Kumar
Tiwari
Nursing staff 27.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
13 Sanoj Devi Nursing staff 26.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
14 Mahesh Chand
Meena
Nursing staff 24.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
15 Yogendra Kumar
Bhardwaj
Nursing staff 27.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
16 Manish Kumar Nursing staff 12.07.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 36 of 55
17 Rajesh Aggarwal Nursing staff 21.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
18 Seema Nursing staff 01.08.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
19 Mahesh Kumar
Yadav
Nursing staff 01.01.2009 31.03.2025 16 years
20 Vishnu Sahu Nursing staff 14.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
21 Saroj Devi Nursing staff 21.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
22 Rajendra Kumar
Saini
Nursing staff 26.06.2012 31.03.2025 13 years
23 Usha Khanna Nursing staff 24.07.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
24 Sita Ram Jaat Nursing staff 02.01.2009 31.03.2025 16 years
25 Jai Narayan Dudi Nursing staff 26.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
26 Rajesh Kumar Nursing staff 18.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
27 Jai Prakash Nursing staff 06.10.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
28 Amar Singh
Yadav
Nursing staff 28.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
29 Rajkumar Yadav Nursing staff 26.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
30 Choth Mal Yadav Nursing staff 26.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
31 Deepika Nursing staff 03.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
32 Satyender Nursing staff 24.02.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
33 Jai Ram Jaat Nursing staff 27.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
34 Ashok Kumar
Sharma
Nursing staff 27.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years
35 Krishna Kumar
Mittal
Nursing staff 04.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
36 Jagram Nursing staff 20.02.3007 31.03.2025 18 years
37 Shravan Kumar Nursing staff 09.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
38 Jaideep Singh Nursing staff 03.08.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
39 Kavita Nursing staff 29.06.2012 31.03.2025 12 years
40 Monika Francis Nursing staff 24.09.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 37 of 55
41 Mumtaz Praveen Nursing staff 27.06.2012 31.03.2025 12 years
42 Sangeeta Kumari Nursing staff 28.06.2012 31.03.2025 12 years
43 Harish Kumar Nursing staff 15.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
44 Jal Singh Nursing staff 16.12.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
45 Sanjay Kumar Nursing staff 06.11.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
46 Vikram Singh
Yadav
Nursing staff 30.12.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
47 Ashok Kumar Nursing staff 16.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
48 Ravinder Kumar Nursing staff 03.10.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
49 Vandana Nursing staff 04.11.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
50 Vineeta Kuchhar Nursing staff 12.04.2007 31.03.2025 17 years
51 Sujan Singh Nursing staff 12.04.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
52 Dimple Nursing staff 04.04.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
53 Mukesh Chand
Verma
Nursing staff 10.05.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
54 Rajpal Nursing staff 04.04.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
55 Divesh Kumar Nursing staff 10.04.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
56 Ekta Malik Nursing staff 31.08.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
57 Sumitra Nursing staff 28.08.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
58 Dev Krishnan
Godara
Nursing staff 26.02.2007 31.03.2025 17 years
59 Mukesh Kr
Yadav
Nursing Staff 14.07.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
60 Mahesh Kumar Nursing Staff 02.07.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
61 Dharmendra
Kumar
Nursing Staff 17.07.2007 31.03.2025 17 years
62 Tejpal Singh
Jatav
Nursing Staff 05.05.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
63 Surender Kumar
Yadav
Nursing Staff 01.10.2005 31.03.2025 19 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 38 of 55
64 Satyapal Yadav Nursing Staff 04.07.2007 31.03.2025 17 years
65 Rakesh Kumar Nursing
Officer
20.02.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
66 Jai Prakash Saini Nursing
Officer
07.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
67 Mukesh Kumar
Jaat
Nursing
Officer
03.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
68 Prakash Chand
Saini
Nursing
Officer
21.02.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
69 Hari Ram Nursing
Officer
13.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
70 Surender Kumar Nursing
Officer
04.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
71 Balbindra Pal Nursing
Officer
03.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
72 Gopal Sharma Nursing
Officer
20.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
73 Rajender Singh
Yadav
Nursing
Officer
30.09.2005 31.03.2025 19 years
74 Asha Galav Nursing
Officer
04.07.2005 31.03.2025 19 years
75 Ram Raj Kumhar Nursing
Officer
21.07.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
76 Naomi
Chinngashlian
Tonsing
Nursing
Officer
17.07.2008 31.03.2025 16 years
Narendra Sharma v GNCTD - WP (C) 2146/2025
S.No Name Designation Date of
joining
Extended
till
Tenure
1 Narendra
Sharma
Nursing Staff 13.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 39 of 55
2 Deepa Nursing Staff 03.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
3 Vijay Pal
Yadav
Nursing Staff 26.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
4 Sibi Paul Nursing Staff 05.09.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
5 Ambili PJ Nursing Staff 05.09.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
6 Dharm
Singh
Gurjar
Nursing Staff 14.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
Vikas Yadav v GNCTD - WP (C) 2148/2025
S.No Name Designation Date of
joining
Extended
till
Tenure
1. Vikas
Yadav
Nursing Staff 12.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
2. Dharam
Singh
Nursing Staff 09.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
3. Bastiram
Yadav
Nursing Staff 12.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
4. Gayatri
Devi
Nursing Staff 01.07.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
5. Rajesh
Singh
Shekhawat
Nursing Staff 03.05.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
6. Sarjeet
Singh
Nursing Staff 07.05.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
7. Mahendra
Kumar
Yadav
Nursing Staff 03.05.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
8. Priyanka Nursing Staff 05.07.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
9. Moolchand
Jangid
Nursing Staff 08.05.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
10. Kanta Rani Nursing Staff 14.05.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 40 of 55
11. Vinod
Kumari
Nursing Staff 25.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
12. Prakash
Yadav
Nursing Staff 05.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
13. Monika
Arora
Nursing Staff 01.05.2007 31.03.2025 18 years
Angom Sunanda Devi v GNCTD - WP (C) 2174/2025
S.No Name Designation Date of
joining
Extended
till
Tenure
1 Angom
Sunanda
Devi
Nursing Staff 10.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
2 Anu
George
Nursing Staff 05.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
3 Ashish
Mathew
Nursing Staff 10.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
4 Bhanwar
Lal Jat
Nursing Staff 10.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
5 Deep Mala
Somani
Nursing Staff 07.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
6 Dinesh
Kumar
Swarnkar
Nursing Staff 05.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
7 Dinesh
Kumar
Nursing Staff 10.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
8 Krishna
Kumar
Yadav
Nursing Staff 10.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
9 Mukesh
Kumar
Yadav
Nursing Staff 01.04.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
10 Namita
Sharma
Nursing Staff 07.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 41 of 55
11 Neetu
Sharma
Nursing officer 08.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
12 PT Esther Nursing officer 10.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
13 Raj Kumar
Yadav
Nursing officer 28.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
14 Rajesh
Kumar
Nursing officer 07.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
15 Rohitash
Kumar
Nursing officer 05.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
16 Ravi
Kumar
Nursing officer 05.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
17 Shakuntala Nursing officer 10.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
18 Shakuntla
Rani
Nursing officer 05.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
19 Suman
Bala
Nursing officer 07.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
20 Sunil Dutt
Yadav
Nursing officer 14.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
21 Vijay Singh
Meena
Nursing officer 11.04.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
22 Vipin
Kumar
Yadav
Nursing officer 10.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
23 Angom
Bimola
Devi
Nursing officer 07.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
Pankaj Shukla v GNCTD - WP (C) 3008/2025
S.No Name Designation Date of
joining
Extended till Tenure
1. Pankaj
Shukla
Occupational
Therapist
07.03.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
2. Krishna Jr. Medical 01.09.2005 01.06.2025 19 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 42 of 55
Kumar
Sharma
Lab
Technologist
3. Charu Bala
Ratra
Nsg Officer 01.09.2005 01.06.2025 19 years
4. Sangeeta
Singh
Jr. Medical
Lab
Technologist
21.09.2005 01.06.2025 19 years
5. Vijay Kumar
Ranga
Jr. Medical
Lab
Technologist
23.09.2005 01.06.2025 19 years
6. Mohd. Islam OT Assistant 07.03.2007 01.06.2025 18 years
7. Anu Bala
Kumari
Nsg Officer 09.03.2007 01.06.2025 18 years
8. Mohd.
Saleem
OT Assistant 03.10.2003 01.06.2025 21 years
9. Sanjay
Kumar
OT Assistant 28.08.2003 01.06.2025 21 years
10. Shailendra
Kumar Yadav
Nsg Officer 20.02.2007 01.06.2025 18 years
11. Vijay Gautam Radiographer 04.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
12. Ruchin
Rajran
Medical Lab
Technologist
05.03.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
13 Prem Singh Medical Lab
Technologist
01.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
14. Sonu OT Technician 01.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
15. Rinky
Sharma
Medical Lab
Technologist
08.03.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
16. Vinod Kumar
Verma
Senior
Radiographer
08.03.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
17. Rakesh
Sharma
Jr Medical Lab
Technologist
10.03.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
18. Mohit
Sharma
Jr Medical Lab
Technologist
24.03.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
19. Praveen Nsg. Officer 05.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 43 of 55
Kumar Yadav
20. Pankaj
Kumar
Trivedi
Nsg. Officer 01.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
21. Rajeeta Singh Nsg. Officer 01.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
22. Lokesh
Sharma
Nsg. Officer 01.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
23. Sardar Singh
Rundla
Nsg. Officer 01.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
24. Megha Masih Nsg. Officer 04.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
25. Santosh
Kumar
OT Technician 10.03.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
26. Nitin Attary Dark Room
Asst
18.10.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
27. Peush Raj
Singh
ECG
Technician
05.03.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
28. Subhash
Chand
OT Assistant 04.11.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
29. Imam Mehadi OT Assistant 08.08.2008 01.06.2025 17 years
30. Rupesh
Sharma
Radiographer 13.12.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
31. Nitin Kumar
Sharma
Radiographer
13.12.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
32. Amit Kumar Jr. Medical
Lab
Technologist
13.12.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
33. Surender
Kumar
Dental
Hygienist
16.12.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
34. Debendra Kr
Sial
OT Technician 14.12.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
35. Gautam
Jugran
Pharmacist 15.12.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
36. Ashish
Kaushik
OT Assistant 09.12.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 44 of 55
37. Sonu Kardam OT Assistant 03.02.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
38. Mohd Moin
Ahmad
ECG
Technician
12.11.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
39. Urmila OT Assistant 17.12.2011 01.06.2025 14 years
40. Mohd Asim OT Technician 05.01.2012 01.06.2025 13 years
41. Preeti OT Assistant 18.09.2012 01.06.2025 13 years
42. Neha Sharma Medical Lab
Technologist
28.02.2012 01.06.2025 13 years
43. Vipin Kumar Radiographer 22.01.2013 01.06.2025 12 years
44. Mukesh
Kumar
Radiographer 22.01.2013 01.06.2025 12 years
45. Priyanka
Arora
Jr Medical Lab
Technologist
19.01.2013 01.06.2025 12 years
46. Pankaj
Kumar
OT Assistant 11.01.2013 01.06.2025 12 years
47. Priya Darshni
Gaurav
Pharmacist 11.02.2013 01.06.2025 12 years
48. Sanjay
Kumar
Audiometry
Assistant
09.05.2013 01.06.2025 12 years
49. Pravesh
Kumar Joshi
Nsg Officer 01.08.2008 01.06.2025 16 years
Anita V Yoyakim- WP (C) 8538/2025
S.No Name Designation Date of
joining
Extended
till
Tenure
1 Anita V
Yoyakim
Nursing Staff 08.12.2008 30.06.2025 16 years
2 Seema
Kumari
Nursing Staff 07.07.2008 30.06.2025 16 years
3 Suni K
Chacko
Nursing Staff 10.07.2008 30.06.2025 16 years
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 45 of 55
4 Neenu
Maria Jose
Nursing Staff 21.07.2008 30.06.2025 16 years
5 Promila Pal Nursing Staff 29.05.2005 30.06.2025 20 years
6 Prakash
Chand
Nursing Staff 30.04.2007 30.06.2025 18 years
Preeti- WP (C) 9430/2025
S.No Name Designation Date of
joining
Extended till Tenure
1 Preeti Nursing Officer 01.03.2008 31.03.2025 17 years
9. The petitioners moved the Tribunal seeking their regularization.
By judgments dated 18 September 2024 and 12 March 2025, under
challenge in these writ petitions, the Tribunal has rejected the prayers
on the ground that (i) Recruitment Rules were in place when the
advertisements were issued, (ii) the petitioners were appointed in the
exigencies of service, (iii) they continued working under interim
orders passed by the Tribunal, (iv) the advertisement itself made it
clear that they were not appointed against any substantive posts and
(v) they did not participate in the regular recruitment process initiated
by the respondents.
10. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have instituted the present
writ petitions before this Court, seeking quashing of the judgments
rendered by the Tribunal and allowing of the prayers made by them in
their OAs.
Rival Contentions
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 46 of 55
11. Submissions of Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat for the respondents
11.1 Ms. Ahlawat’s primary contention is that the respondents had,
during the period over which the petitioners have been continuing as
contract paramedical staff on the basis of interim orders passed by the
Tribunal and, thereafter, by this Court, issued advertisements for
regular recruitment to the posts occupied by the petitioners, after
giving them age relaxation. The petitioners did not, however, avail the
said opportunities. The exercise of advertising the posts and inviting
applications for regular recruitment, it is submitted, was undertaken in
terms of the directions contained in the judgment dated 6 November
2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sonia Gandhi v
GNCTD
15
. No such advertisements, it is stated, were issued in 2011
and 2018. An Office Memorandum dated 11 October 2020 was also
issued by the GNCTD, containing a one-time regularization policy for
nursing and paramedical staff who had been recruited on contract
basis after granting them age relaxation by permitting them to
participate in the regular recruitment process. It is the respondents’
submission that the petitioners could not have allowed these
opportunities for regular recruitment to pass them by, without availing
of the opportunities and thereafter maintain a claim for regularization
merely because they have been continuing for long periods of time.
11.2 We may note that, but for this contention, there is no other basis
on which the respondents have been able to distinguish the facts of the
present case from those which obtain in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo,
Shripal and Dharam Singh. The respondents have, however, relied
15
2013 (139) DRJ 71 (DB)
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 47 of 55
on certain decisions of the Supreme Court rendered prior to Vinod
Kumar, to which we would advert later at this judgment.
12. Submissions of Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners
12.1 As against this, Mr. Gonsalves, as one of the primary planks of
his submissions, asserts that the decision in Uma Devi put a full stop
to contractual appointments. He submits that para 26 of Uma Devi
completely proscribed any contractual appointment being made
thereafter in any organization. He relies for this purpose on the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v State
of Jharkhand
16
and Sheo Narain Nagar v State of Uttar Pradesh
17
.
Inasmuch as the very engagement of staff on contract basis violates
para 26 of Uma Devi, Mr. Gonsalves’ primary contention is that all
such staff were ipso facto entitled to regularization so as to reverse the
effect of the said violation.
12.2 Mr. Gonsalves further submits that the respondents cannot seek
to contend that they had made attempts of regular recruitment to the
posts held by the petitioners during the period of their continued
contractual engagement and use that as a means to contest the
petitioners’ entitlement to regularization. He submits that there is a
fundamental difference between regularization of existing workmen
and fresh recruitment. The decisions in Jaggo and other cases, he
submits, mandates regularization of contractual employees who had
rendered blemish free service for long periods of time. This mandate
16
(2018) 8 SCC 238
17
(2018) 13 SCC 432
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 48 of 55
cannot be substituted with an offer for undertaking an examination or
participating in a regular recruitment process.
12.3 Besides, he submits that requiring the petitioners to participate
in such a regular recruitment process would place them at a distinct
disadvantage and would undo, entirely, the benefits which the
Supreme Court intended to grant by its decisions in Vinod Kumar,
Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh. It would require the petitioners,
who had behind them close to 20 years’ unblemished service, to
compete with fresh recruits fresh from college, which would itself be
prejudicial to the petitioners. It would also provide an avenue for the
respondents to bypass the law laid down in Vinod Kumar and the
judgments that followed, by compelling the contractual workers to
participate in regular recruitment process and disqualifying them
therein. As a result, the right to regularization, which otherwise
devolves on such contractual workers by virtue of the decisions in
Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh, would be
completely negated.
12.4 Mr. Gonsalves submits that the Tribunal has committed various
errors in rejecting the petitioners’ OAs. He points out that the
Tribunal was in error in holding that the petitioners were not
appointed against any substantive posts. Further, the Tribunal failed
to notice that there still existed 2099 sanctioned vacant posts of
nursing officers. In fact, submits Mr. Gonsalves, the executive
authorities had, in line with the legal position, proceeded towards
regularization of the contractually employed nursing staff, and the
introduction of a recruitment test for the said purpose was something
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 49 of 55
beyond what was contemplated by the policy.
13. It submitted that, in its judgment in Sonia Gandhi, the Division
Bench of this Court directed thus:
“22. Accordingly, we issue another direction and simultaneously
dispose of the two writ petitions. The direction would be that the
Government of NCT Delhi would carry out a manpower
requirement assessment in all its departments keeping in view the
fact that the population in Delhi has crossed 1.7 crore persons.
Such number of posts shall be sanctioned as are necessary to
provide services to the citizens of Delhi. A one-time policy of
regularization shall be framed and existing rules pertaining to
service in different departments shall be amended. Existing
contractual employees shall be considered for appointment to these
new posts as per a policy framed.”
Thus, the High Court did not direct holding of any fresh recruitment
process for regularization of the existing contractual para-medical
staff. Posts were to be sanctioned and the employees were to be
regularized against the said posts. Thereafter, on 11 October 2020, the
Health & Family Welfare Department of GNCTD envisaged a one-
time regularization policy of the contractually engaged para-medical
staff, without making any reference to a recruitment test. The
introduction of a recruitment test, in the advertisement dated 12
January 2024, was, therefore, beyond the policy of regularization
envisaged by the respondents, following the decision in Sonia
Gandhi.
14. Reliance has also been placed on letter dated 7 March 2024 of
the Health Minister, GNCTD, which takes note of the decision in
Sonia Gandhi and thereafter directs regularization of the para-
medical staffs who were continuing on contractual basis. Posts, for
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 50 of 55
such staff, were directed to be set aside from the regular recruitment
process. Even that letter, it is pointed out, envisaged 1068 such posts
which were being manned by contractual employees and 238 clear
vacancies. As against this, the present petitions cover only 174 nursing
officers. It is further pointed out that the posts against which the
petitioners were recruited were sanctioned posts, for which purpose,
reliance is placed on their letters of extension.
Analysis
15. To our mind, the present petitions stand covered on facts by the
decision in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh. We
have already set out the propositions emerging from the said
decisions, and do not deem it necessary to repeat them in extenso.
However, some principles, which are dispositive of the petitions
before us, may be enumerated:
(i) If
(a) the employees are selected by a process which
mirrors regular recruitment, by holding selections and
interviews,
(b) they have worked continuously for several years,
and
(c) they are performing duties essential for the
establishment or organization,
they are entitled to regularization.
(ii) The right to regularization, thus earned, is substantive in
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 51 of 55
nature.
(iii) In such cases, the initial label under which they were
recruited, whether part-time, or contractual, or casual, or ad
hoc, or temporary, would not matter.
(iv) However, the appointment must not be illegal, mala fide,
surreptitious, or “back door”.
(v) In such circumstances, it is not open to the respondents to
contend that the posts occupied by the employees were not
regular posts. The recurrent nature of the duties performed by
the employees necessitated the classification of the posts as
regular, irrespective the original label under which the
employees may have been appointed. The initial temporary, ad
hoc, contractual, or casual, nature of their employment stood
transformed, in such cases, “into a scenario demanding fair
regularization”.
(vi) The right to regularization would enure, in such cases,
even if the posts against which the employees were appointed
were not sanctioned posts – though, in the present case, the
posts against which the petitioners were appointed were
sanctioned.
16. In the present cases, the petitioners were employed, albeit on
contract basis, pursuant to advertisement. A regular selection process,
therefore, took place, qualifications were prescribed, and the
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 52 of 55
petitioners fulfilled the qualifications. The appointments were against
sanctioned posts. The nature of duties rendered by the petitioners,
being nursing and para-medical duties, were, by their very nature,
essential and perennial. They could not, therefore, be regarded as
dispensable. The service rendered by the petitioners is blemish free.
There is no complaint against them at any point of time. They have
continued rendering uninterrupted service for close to 20 years. The
very fact they have been extended periodically from time to time
against sanctioned posts indicates that there is continued need of their
services. Their case, therefore, in fact, stands on a much better footing
than the cases of the employees/workmen which were before the
Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam
Singh, as the petitioners were duly qualified, appointed against
sanctioned posts and appointed consequent to a regular recruitment
process.
17. These factors, by themselves, entitle the petitioners to be
regularized in the posts against which they were originally appointed.
This is the unmistakable consequence of the decisions in Vinod
Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh.
18. Article 141 of the Constitution of India makes the judgments in
Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh binding on us.
Article 144 requires us to act in the aid of the law declared by the
Supreme Court, which would include making all efforts to ensure that
the law declared by the Supreme Court is implemented with full vigor.
We cannot, therefore, craft an exception into the law declared in
Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh in cases where
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 53 of 55
regular recruitment exercises were undertaken. Where petitioners had,
by dint of their original appointment and continuous uninterrupted
blemish free service on the post in which they were appointed, earned
a right to regularization, they could not be compelled to participate in
any recruitment exercise. Expressed otherwise, the omission on the
part of the petitioners to participate in the regular recruitment
exercises undertaken by the respondents cannot derogate from their
right to regularization flowing from the facts of their cases and the law
declared in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh.
19. Any attempt at distinguishing the facts of the present case from
those which stand covered by the judgments in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo,
Shripal and Dharam Singh, to our mind, would be no less than an
affront to the said judgments. We, as a Court lower in the judicial
hierarchy, are least inclined to pursue this perilous course. The legal
position in this regard stands tellingly underscored in the recent
decision of the Supreme Court, rendered just three days ago, in Rohan
Vijay Nahar v State of Maharashtra
18
, from which the following
paragraphs merit reproduction:
“1. The judiciary draws its strength from discipline and not
dominion. The Constitution of India creates courts of record that
are independent in their spheres and yet binds them together
through a coherent hierarchy. The High Courts in India possess a
wide jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court of India remains the final
interpreter of law. Article 141 of the Constitution of India1
declares that the law laid down by this Court binds every court in
the country. Further, Article 144 of the Constitution obliges all
authorities, civil and judicial, to act in aid of this Court. These are
not ceremonial recitals. They are the structural guarantees that
convert dispersed adjudication into a single system that speaks
with one voice and commands public confidence.
18
Judgment dated 7 November 2025 in CA 5454/2019
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 54 of 55
2. Judicial discipline is the ethic that turns hierarchy into
harmony. It requires courtesy, restraint, and obedience to binding
precedent even where a judge is personally unpersuaded. The
lawful course is to apply the precedent and, if needed, record
reasons for inviting a larger Bench to reconsider it. The unlawful
and unjust course is to distinguish in name while disregarding in
substance or to recast issues in order to sidestep a rule that binds.
“Stare decisis et non quieta movere” which means to stand by
decisions and not to disturb settled matters, is not a slogan but a
safeguard of equality before the law. Judges do not sit to settle
scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason and not a weapon of
reprisal. A vindictive stance is incompatible with the oath to
uphold the Constitution and the law.
3. Judges across our country must remember that collegiality
is the companion virtue of independence and that a reversal on
appeal is not a personal affront but the ordinary operation of a
constitutional hierarchy that corrects error and settles law. Respect
for the senior jurisdiction is not subservience. It is an
acknowledgment that all courts pursue a common enterprise to do
justice according to law. An Appellate Court reviews and, where
necessary, sets right the decision of the lower court with restraint
and measured language, and the courts below reciprocate through
prompt, reasoned, and transparent compliance. Courts speak
through reasons, and reasons that align with binding authority
preserve both legality and legitimacy of the judiciary. Articles 141
and 144 of the Constitution make obedience a constitutional duty
and not a matter of personal preference. A judgment that attempts
to resist binding authority undermines the unity of law, burdens
litigants with avoidable expense and delay, and invites the
perception that outcomes depend on the identity of the judge. In a
constitutional judiciary, it is the law, as declared, that brings the
conversation to a close. We restate the simple duty of Courts:
apply precedent as it stands and give effect to appellate directions
as they are framed. In that discipline lies the confidence of litigants
and the credibility of courts.”
(Emphasis supplied)
We draw sustenance from these passages.
20. In the light of the law that has now been declared in Vinod
Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh, it is clear that the
judgment of the Tribunal cannot be upheld.
W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Page 55 of 55
Conclusion
21. Resultantly, the impugned orders of the Tribunal are quashed
and set aside.
22. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to be regularized against
the posts on which they were originally appointed, irrespective of the
labels governing such appointment. They would be entitled to fixation
of pay treating them as having been regularly appointed ab initio.
They shall also be entitled to all other benefits which would follow,
except for back wages.
23. These writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
NOVEMBER 10, 2025
dsn/ar/yg/aky
Legal Notes
Add a Note....