Synopsis

The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) challenged a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing regularisation of Pharmacists and Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs) who had been appointed after open selection against sanctioned vacancies and had served continuously for years on contract basis, with their contracts periodically renewed. The NDMC argued that the matter was pending before the UPSC for framing of Recruitment Rules and that the employees should await that process. The Delhi High Court dismissed the NDMC’s petitions, holding that the issue was squarely covered by a series of Supreme Court decisions – Vinod Kumar v. UOI, Jaggio v. UOI, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Pawan Kumar v. UOI. The court held that long‑serving contractual employees appointed through open selection against sanctioned vacancies, performing essential and perennial duties, acquire a right to regularisation. The court modified the Tribunal’s order to the extent that regularisation would be prospective, but with fixation of pay, seniority and continuity of service from the date of initial appointment (without back wages).

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Date of Judgment: 13th April 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 4646/2026 & 4649/2026 (2026:DHC:3074-DB)

Core Law: Service law – Regularisation of contractual employees; Constitutional law – Articles 14, 16, 21

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Constitution of India – Articles 14 (right to equality), 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), 21 (right to life and dignity)

• Service law – principles of regularisation, unfair labour practice, distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments

• Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 – jurisdiction of CAT

Key legal principles applied

• Regularisation flows from long, continuous service after open selection: Where employees are appointed after a proper selection process (written test, interview) against sanctioned vacancies, and they continue to work for years performing duties indistinguishable from regular employees, they acquire a right to regularisation. The initial label of “contractual” or “temporary” does not defeat this right.

• Uma Devi distinguished – not a bar to regularisation in such cases: The Constitution Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi was intended to prevent backdoor and illegal appointments. It does not penalise employees who entered through a regular selection process and served for long periods. Uma Devi itself distinguished between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments, the latter being eligible for regularisation as a one‑time measure.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.