Paul Kumar Kalai, Mr. Umesh Kumar, Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr. Kamran Khwaja, Advs v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Judgment

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 India1

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 Tribunal2, seeking regularization. The Tribunal, as well as thereafter the High Court, dismissed the pleas of the appellants on the ground Signature Not Verified 1 (2024) 9 SCC 327 2 “Tribunal” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 Devi3.

3.2 The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and the High Court, reasoning thus: regular employees, “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 duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection 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. through a process that mirrors performing The application of the judgment in Umadevi by the High 6. 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 Signature Not Verified 3 (2006) 4 SCC 1 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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: (not irregular appointments “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v S.V. Narayanappa4, R.N. Nanjundappa v T. Thimmiah5, and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka6 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 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.” measure, services (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 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.” to regular status. The failure to recognise 4 AIR 1967 SC 1071 5 (1972) 1 SCC 409 6 (1979) 4 SCC 507 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters

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 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters (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 Commission8 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, Signature Not Verified 7 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 8 “CWC” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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. The appellants’ consistent performance over their long 16. 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. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, 17. we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters gardening—does not formal educational inherently mandate 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. illegal appointments It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) 20. 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 that circumvent backdoor entries and 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. ***** The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label 21. 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 light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not their appointments. In Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. ***** It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, 25. 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. themselves of Career • Progression: Temporary Lack excluded employees often 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, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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) (b) (c) their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and 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 rendered continuous 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 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters (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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 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) (b) (c) the realities of the employment, continuous and long-term service of the employee, the indispensable nature of their duties and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters (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 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 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters

5. Shripal v Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad9

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 Nigam10 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 Signature Not Verified 9 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 10 “GNN”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 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: On a plain reading of this section, we can deduce that any “9. 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters labelled The Respondent Employer consistently

10. 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 the contractor’s testimony 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. the contractor, or The evidence, including documentary material and 12. 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- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 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. record which shows no 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……. ***** In light of these considerations,

17. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 UP11

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 Signature Not Verified 11 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Services Commission12.

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 Signature Not Verified 12 “UPHESC”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters believe that a non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of “financial constraints”, ignoring functional necessity and the employer’s own discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution. longstanding reliance on daily wagers the appellants, Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work 9. performed by 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 placed. Selective treatment 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. similarly vis-(cid:224)-vis persons

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters in Shripal v Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad India and 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. ***** posts were the Commission’s affidavit

12. We also note 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 the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission and, by a Government Order of 05.07.2024, certain sanctioned while Class-IV/Driver Group-C 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 regime. More fundamentally, a 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. later policy the prior to sidestep in both Jaggo As we have observed to perpetuate precariousness and (supra) 13. and Shripal (supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the 15. 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) 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 supernumerary posts create Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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. period 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 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.

24.04.2002 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 Judgment.” this Court within four months of

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 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 “reconsiderations,” technicalities, rolling Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 Devi13, 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 Signature Not Verified 13 (2021) 20 SCC 290 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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. Signature Not Verified The petitioners in all these cases were appointed pursuant to Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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) 2174/202514, 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:- Consolid- remunera- tion per (inclusive of all allowanc- es) ₹ 10575/- S. No Name of post

1. STAFF NURSE Age Limit 32 Required qualification Date of interview No 54 07-02-08 & 08-02-08 Matriculat- OR

1. equivalent qualification. 2. certificate nursing ‘A’ Grade Signature Not Verified 14 Angom Sunanda Devi and Ors v GNCTD and Ors Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Certificate Should be / to speak recognized institution. 3. in Midwifery. 4. understand Hindi. 5. registered State Council. Should be Nursing 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. Signature Not Verified

4. The candidate shall have to give one month notice or deposit an amount equivalent to one month remuneration if he / she Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters wishes to terminate the contract. The candidate will sincerely perform the duties assigned to 5. 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. Any unauthorized absence from duty for more than five

6. 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. Leave admissibility to the employee during the contract

9. 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. v. Leave encashment on termination of agreement only 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” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters

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 Tenure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pawan Sharma Nursing staff 01.05.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Neetesh Kumar Nursing staff 09.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Mukesh Kumar Swarankar Nursing staff 19.09.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Sandeep Kumar Nursing staff 30.06.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Arun Kumar Mishra Dinesh Kumar Saini Raj Kumar Guupta Nursing staff 28.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Nursing staff 27.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years Nursing staff 21.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Satveer Singh Nursing staff 01.06.2007 31.03.2025 18 years 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 12 Hariom Gupta Nursing staff 14.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years 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 15 Yogendra Kumar Bhardwaj Nursing staff 24.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Nursing staff

27.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years 16 Manish Kumar Nursing staff 12.07.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 17 18 Rajesh Aggarwal Nursing staff 21.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years 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 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Vishnu Sahu Nursing staff 14.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Saroj Devi Nursing staff 21.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Rajendra Kumar Saini Nursing staff 26.06.2012 31.03.2025 13 years Usha Khanna Nursing staff 24.07.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Sita Ram Jaat Nursing staff 02.01.2009 31.03.2025 16 years Jai Narayan Dudi Nursing staff 26.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Rajesh Kumar Nursing staff 18.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Jai Prakash Nursing staff 06.10.2005 31.03.2025 20 years Amar Singh Yadav Nursing staff 28.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years Rajkumar Yadav Nursing staff 26.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years Choth Mal Yadav Nursing staff 26.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years Deepika Nursing staff 03.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Satyender Nursing staff 24.02.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Jai Ram Jaat Nursing staff 27.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years Ashok Kumar Sharma Krishna Kumar Mittal Nursing staff 27.09.2005 31.03.2025 20 years Nursing staff 04.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Jagram Nursing staff 20.02.3007 31.03.2025 18 years Shravan Kumar Nursing staff 09.07.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Jaideep Singh Nursing staff 03.08.2008 31.03.2025 17 years Kavita Nursing staff 29.06.2012 31.03.2025 12 years 40 Monika Francis Nursing staff 24.09.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 41 Mumtaz Praveen Nursing staff 27.06.2012 31.03.2025 12 years 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Sangeeta Kumari Nursing staff 28.06.2012 31.03.2025 12 years Harish Kumar Nursing staff 15.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Jal Singh Nursing staff 16.12.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Sanjay Kumar Nursing staff 06.11.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Vikram Singh Yadav Nursing staff 30.12.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Ashok Kumar Nursing staff 16.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years Ravinder Kumar Nursing staff 03.10.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Vandana Nursing staff 04.11.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Vineeta Kuchhar Nursing staff 12.04.2007 31.03.2025 17 years Sujan Singh Nursing staff 12.04.2008 31.03.2025 16 years 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 55 56 57 58 Rajpal Nursing staff 04.04.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Divesh Kumar Nursing staff 10.04.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Ekta Malik Nursing staff 31.08.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Sumitra Nursing staff 28.08.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Dev Krishnan Godara Nursing staff 26.02.2007 31.03.2025 17 years 59 Mukesh Kr Nursing Staff 14.07.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Yadav 60 Mahesh Kumar Nursing Staff 02.07.2008 31.03.2025 16 years 61 62 63 Dharmendra Kumar Tejpal Singh Jatav Surender Kumar Yadav Nursing Staff 17.07.2007 31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff 05.05.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Nursing Staff 01.10.2005 31.03.2025 19 years Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Satyapal Yadav Nursing Staff 04.07.2007 31.03.2025 17 years 64 65 66 Rakesh Kumar Nursing Officer Jai Prakash Saini Nursing Officer 67 Mukesh Kumar Jaat Nursing Officer 68 Prakash Chand Saini Nursing Officer 69 Hari Ram Nursing Officer 70 Surender Kumar Nursing Officer 71 Balbindra Pal 72 Gopal Sharma Nursing Officer Nursing Officer 73 Rajender Singh Yadav Nursing Officer 74 Asha Galav Nursing Officer 75 76 Ram Raj Kumhar Nursing Officer Naomi Chinngashlian Tonsing Nursing Officer

20.02.2007 31.03.2025 18 years

07.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years

03.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years

21.02.2007 31.03.2025 18 years

13.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years

04.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years

03.04.2007 31.03.2025 18 years

20.03.2007 31.03.2025 18 years

30.09.2005 31.03.2025 19 years

04.07.2005 31.03.2025 19 years

21.07.2008 31.03.2025 16 years

17.07.2008 31.03.2025 16 years Narendra Sharma v GNCTD - WP (C) 2146/2025 S.No Name Designation Date of joining Extended Tenure 1 Narendra Sharma Nursing Staff

13.07.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 2 3 4 5 6 Deepa Nursing Staff

03.07.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Vijay Pal Yadav Nursing Staff

26.04.2007

31.03.2025 18 years Sibi Paul Nursing Staff

05.09.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Ambili PJ Nursing Staff

05.09.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

14.07.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Dharm Singh Gurjar Vikas Yadav v GNCTD - WP (C) 2148/2025 S.No Name Designation Date of joining Extended Tenure

9. Nursing Staff

12.03.2007

31.03.2025 18 years Nursing Staff

09.03.2007

31.03.2025 18 years Nursing Staff

12.03.2007

31.03.2025 18 years Nursing Staff

01.07.2007

31.03.2025 18 years Nursing Staff

03.05.2007

31.03.2025 18 years Nursing Staff

07.05.2007

31.03.2025 18 years Nursing Staff

03.05.2007

31.03.2025 18 years Vikas Yadav Dharam Singh Bastiram Yadav Gayatri Devi Rajesh Singh Shekhawat Sarjeet Singh Mahendra Kumar Yadav Priyanka Nursing Staff

05.07.2007

31.03.2025 18 years 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters

13. Vinod Kumari Prakash Yadav Monika Arora Nursing Staff

25.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

05.03.2007

31.03.2025 18 years 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 Tenure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Angom Sunanda Devi Anu George Ashish Mathew Bhanwar Lal Jat Deep Mala Somani Dinesh Kumar Swarnkar Dinesh Kumar Krishna Kumar Yadav Mukesh Kumar Yadav Namita Sharma Nursing Staff

10.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

05.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

10.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

10.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

07.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

05.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

10.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

10.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

01.04.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing Staff

07.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Neetu Sharma Nursing officer

08.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years PT Esther Nursing officer

10.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Raj Kumar Yadav Rajesh Kumar Rohitash Kumar Ravi Kumar Nursing officer

28.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing officer

07.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing officer

05.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing officer

05.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Shakuntala Nursing officer

10.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing officer

05.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing officer

07.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing officer

14.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing officer

11.04.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing officer

10.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Nursing officer

07.03.2008

31.03.2025 17 years Shakuntla Rani Suman Bala Sunil Dutt Yadav Vijay Singh Meena Vipin Kumar Yadav Angom Bimola Devi Pankaj Shukla v GNCTD - WP (C) 3008/2025 S.No Name Designation

1. Pankaj Shukla Occupational Therapist Date of joining Extended till Tenure

07.03.2008

01.06.2025 17 years

2. Signature Not Verified Krishna Jr. Medical

01.09.2005

01.06.2025 19 years Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters Kumar Sharma Lab Technologist Charu Bala Ratra Sangeeta Singh Vijay Kumar Ranga Nsg Officer

01.09.2005

01.06.2025 19 years Jr. Medical Lab Technologist Jr. Medical Lab Technologist

21.09.2005

01.06.2025 19 years

23.09.2005

01.06.2025 19 years Mohd. Islam OT Assistant

07.03.2007

01.06.2025 18 years Anu Bala Kumari Mohd. Saleem Sanjay Kumar Shailendra Kumar Yadav Nsg Officer

09.03.2007

01.06.2025 18 years OT Assistant

03.10.2003

01.06.2025 21 years OT Assistant

28.08.2003

01.06.2025 21 years Nsg Officer

20.02.2007

01.06.2025 18 years Vijay Gautam Radiographer

04.08.2008

01.06.2025 17 years Ruchin Rajran Medical Lab Technologist Prem Singh Medical Lab Technologist

05.03.2008

01.06.2025 17 years

01.08.2008

01.06.2025 17 years Sonu OT Technician 01.08.2008

01.06.2025 17 years Rinky Sharma Medical Lab Technologist Vinod Kumar Verma Senior Radiographer

08.03.2008

01.06.2025 17 years

08.03.2008

01.06.2025 17 years

12. 13

17. Rakesh Sharma

18. Mohit Sharma Jr Medical Lab Technologist Jr Medical Lab Technologist

10.03.2008

01.06.2025 17 years

24.03.2008

01.06.2025 17 years

19. Signature Not Verified Praveen Nsg. Officer

05.08.2008

01.06.2025 17 years Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters

23. Kumar Yadav Pankaj Kumar Trivedi Nsg. Officer

01.08.2008

01.06.2025 17 years Rajeeta Singh Nsg. Officer

01.08.2008

01.06.2025 17 years Lokesh Sharma Sardar Singh Rundla Nsg. Officer

01.08.2008

01.06.2025 17 years 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

18.10.2008

01.06.2025 17 years

31. Asst Peush Raj Singh ECG Technician

05.03.2008

01.06.2025 17 years Subhash Chand OT Assistant

04.11.2008

01.06.2025 17 years Imam Mehadi OT Assistant

08.08.2008

01.06.2025 17 years Rupesh Sharma Nitin Kumar Sharma Radiographer

13.12.2011

01.06.2025 14 years Radiographer

13.12.2011

01.06.2025 14 years

32. Amit Kumar Jr. Medical Lab Technologist

13.12.2011

01.06.2025 14 years

36. Surender Kumar Dental Hygienist

16.12.2011

01.06.2025 14 years Debendra Kr Sial Gautam Jugran Ashish Kaushik OT Technician 14.12.2011

01.06.2025 14 years Pharmacist

15.12.2011

01.06.2025 14 years OT Assistant

09.12.2011

01.06.2025 14 years Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters

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

42. Preeti OT Assistant

18.09.2012

01.06.2025 13 years 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

49. Priyanka Arora Pankaj Kumar Priya Darshni Gaurav Jr Medical Lab Technologist

19.01.2013

01.06.2025 12 years OT Assistant

11.01.2013

01.06.2025 12 years Pharmacist

11.02.2013

01.06.2025 12 years Sanjay Kumar Audiometry Assistant

09.05.2013

01.06.2025 12 years 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 Tenure 1 2 3 Anita V Yoyakim Seema Kumari Suni K Chacko Nursing Staff

08.12.2008

30.06.2025 16 years Nursing Staff

07.07.2008

30.06.2025 16 years Nursing Staff

10.07.2008

30.06.2025 16 years Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 4 5 6 Neenu Maria Jose Nursing Staff

21.07.2008

30.06.2025 16 years Promila Pal Nursing Staff

29.05.2005

30.06.2025 20 years 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. Signature Not Verified Rival Contentions Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters

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 GNCTD15. 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 Signature Not Verified 15 2013 (139) DRJ 71 (DB) Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:00:41 W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters 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 Jharkhand16 and Sheo Narain Nagar v State of Uttar Pradesh17. 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 Signature Not Verified