Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. vs Sushil Kumar Ojha And Ors.

$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010410112023
+ W.P.(C) 13467/2023 & CM APPL. 53156/2023
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs Avnish Ahlawat SC
GNCTD Services, Mr Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Advs.
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR OJHA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. N. Gupta and Ms.
Yashika Garg, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 27.10.2026
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The respondents were appointed as Physiotherapists/
Radiographers in Tihar Jail on different dates from 2005 onwards.
They continuously discharged their duties, without any blemish or
complaint.
2. Certain other identically situated Radiographers/
1
Physiotherapists approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by
way of various Original Applications, seeking regularisation. The
Tribunal, by order dated 6 July 2001 in the said OAs, headed by the
2
OA 1479/2000 , directed as under:
“I am now left with the consideration of the relief sought by the
applicants in these OAs. I find that the relief sought is for a
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
2
Subodh Kumar and others v. Union of India and Others
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:42
W.P.(C) 13467/2023 Page 1 of 7

direction to the respondents to prepare a scheme within a given
time frame whereby regular pay scales are made available to the
applicants having regard to their qualifications etc. The further
relief sought is grant of benefit to the applicants, after the scheme
has been framed and the applicants have been regularly employed
thereunder, with effect from respective dates from which they have
been working as NGO-LTs etc. After a careful consideration of the
matter and in view of what has been held by me in the preceding
paragraphs, I am inclined to grant the aforesaid relief, sought is
grant of benefit to the applicants, after the scheme has been framed
and the applicants have been regularly employed thereunder, with
effect from the respective dates from which they have been
working as NGO-LTs etc. After a small consideration of the matter
and in view of what has been held by me in the preceding
paragraphs, I am inclined to grant the aforesaid relief. The
respondents are accordingly, directed carefully to assess the
additional number of posts of LTs etc. required to carry on the
work of their organisation efficiently and thereafter to frame a
proper scheme within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order for absorption/regular employment
of the applicants on posts, the duties and responsibilities of which
they have been discharging over the years, keeping in view the
qualifications possessed and the experience gained by them. Since
most of the applicants, having already served for four to five years
or even more, are likely to have crossed the maximum age of
recruitment to the aforesaid posts, the aforesaid scheme to be
framed by the respondents will contain a relaxation clause to
enable the applicants to be considered for regular appointment as
and when the scheme is framed. If the applicants are found fir to be
regularly appointed in accordance with the aforesaid scheme, the
respondents will make payments of arrears to them in respect of the
past services rendered in accordance with regular pay scales,
needless to say, subject to the provisions of the law of limitation.
3. The judgment of the Tribunal in Subodh Kumar was carried to
3
this Court by means of WP (C) 18442/2004 , which was disposed of
in the following terms:
“23. Thus, noting the continued employment of many claimants,
4
following the decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra)
directions can be issued to the Government of NCT Delhi, as a
onetime measure, to frame a suitable scheme to consider regular
3
Subodh Kumar and others v. GNCTD
4
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:42
W.P.(C) 13467/2023 Page 2 of 7

recruitment of such applicants of OA No.1479/2000, OA No.
1523/2000, OA No. 1534/2000 and OA No.1560/2000 who are still
working at Tihar Jail.
24. As regards wages, we note that the issue of regularization
of service and payment of wages has no co-relation. One may not
be a regular employee but that would not mean that the State can,
exploit its citizens and take benefit of the mismatch between
demand and supply in employment. The principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' has been recognized even in Uma Devi (supra) as per
which directions can be issued that wages in the minimum of the
scale should be paid and not daily wage.
25. We dispose of all the writ petitions directing the
Government of NCT Delhi to, as a one-time measure, frame a
suitable scheme to consider regular recruitment of such applicants
of OA No.1479/2000, OA No.1523/2000, OA No.1534/2000 and
OA No.1560/2000 who are still working at Tihar Jail and while so
doing give benefit of age relaxation. The scheme would duly take
note of the fact that Tihar Jail is under-staffed. Till the scheme is
prepared and implemented such daily wage Laboratory
Technicians/Radiographers who are working at Tihar Jail would be
paid salary in the minimum of the scale in which regularly
appointed Laboratory Technicians/ Radiographers are placed. We
further direct that such of the applicants of OA No.1479/2000, OA
No. 1523/2000, OA No. 1534/2000 and OA No. 1560/2000 who
are still working at Tihar Jail and also Subodh Kumar and Naveen
Kumar be paid wages in the minimum of the scale applicable from
time to time to the post of Laboratory Technician/Radiographer for
the past period of service rendered by them reckoned from the date
the Tribunal issued directions in their favour i.e. 6.7.2001 and
while so doing the daily wage received by them under the label of
travelling allowance be adjusted. We clarify that such applicants of
OA No.1479/2000, OA No.1523/2000, OA No. 1534/2000 and OA
No.1560/2000 who have left employment and are not working
(except Subodh Kumar and Naveen Kumar), would not be entitled
to the benefit of directions issued by us. An exception needs to be
carved out qua Sohan Lal on the issue of wages payable to him.
Noting that he is an Ex-Serviceman and receiving pension, while
determining back wages payable to him with effect from 6.7.2001,
in addition to the daily wage received by him as travelling
allowance, pension received by him would also be adjusted.
26. Needful would be done within 6 months from today.”
4. The judgment of this Court was further carried by the GNCTD
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:42
W.P.(C) 13467/2023 Page 3 of 7

to the Supreme Court, without success. A review petition, filed for
review of the order passed by the Supreme Court, was also dismissed.
5. Following this, in the case of the applicants in Subodh Kumar ,
the following order passed by the petitioners:
“F.No. 18(859)/CJ/PHQ/Estt/2014/975 Dated 30/04/2015
OFFICE ORDER
In compliance of Hon’ble supreme Court of India order in
review SLP (Civil) No. 2172-74 of 2014 titled GNCTD & another
Vs. Subodh Kumar & others vide its order dated 14.10.2014 and
after approval of Finance Department, GNCT of Delhi vide U.O.
No. 09/DS-2/28.04.2015 the following employees are hereby taken
on strength w.e.f. 01.01.2015 to the post mentioned against their
names;
Sr.
No.
Name of the
employee
Remarks
1. Sh. Raghuvinder Against vacant post of
Radiographer at Central Jail
Hospital, Tihar
2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Against vacant post of
Radiographer at Central Jail
Hospital, Tihar
3. Sh. Naresh Kumar Against vacant post of Lab.
Technician at Central Jail
Hospital, Tihar
4. Sh. Anil Kumar Against vacant post of Lab.
Technician at Mandoli Jails,
The expenditure involved on this account would be
debitable to the under mentioned Head of Account for the year
2015-16 under Demand-for-Grant No. – 05.
Head of Account
ALFA Code: - MH-2056(Non-Plan)-A-1(1)(1)(2),-Wages
And
ALFA Code: - MH-2056(Plan)-A-1(1)(1)(2),-Wages
This issue with the concurrence of the finance Department, GNCT
of Delhi vide their U.O. No. 09/DS-02/28.04.2015.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:42
W.P.(C) 13467/2023 Page 4 of 7

-sd-
(JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
Dy. Superintendent (Med)
Central Jail Hospital, Tihar”
(We may note that Subodh Kumar’s name does not figure in the
aforesaid order as it appears that he had resigned in the interregnum.)
6. Further following the aforesaid order, the following order was
passed by the Home (General) Department of the GNCTD in respect
of the applicants in Subodh Kumar :
“No. F.9/101/2004/HG/3000 Dated; 06-07-2015
To,
The Director General (PRISONS)
Central Jail, Tihar,
New Delhi.
Sub: Regarding implementation of directions issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the review SLP (Civil) NO.
2172-74 of 20144.
Sir,
With reference to proposal dated 13.5.2015 on the
captioned subject, I am directed to convey the approval of Hon’ble
Lt. Governor, Delhi, for relaxation in age and educational
qualification, as-per RRs, for appointment of applicants, i.e. Sh.
Raghuvinder and Sh. Rajesh Kumar against the vacant post of
Radiographer and Sh. Naresh Kumar & Sh. Anil Kumar against the
vacant post of Lab Technician in the Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200+
Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-. The appointment shall be subject to the
following conditions:-
(a) The candidates should undergo 3 months training
(full time) in Govt. Hospital (Deen Dayal Hospital, in this
case being nearest), with certification of skill-level at the
end of it, for the one without even diploma, Training would
be extended for 06 months followed by certification.
(b) Action regarding fixing of responsibility on erring
officials, should be completed in a month and Hon’ble Lt.
Governor, Delhi may be apprised accordingly.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:42
W.P.(C) 13467/2023 Page 5 of 7

File No. F.5/1/RMO/CJH/2014 of Prison Department is returned
herewith.
Yours faithfully,
-sd-
DY. SECRETARY HOME (JAIL)”
7. Before the Tribunal, in the present case, the respondent
submitted that it was only seeking the same relief as has been granted
to the applicants in the Subodh Kumar . Accordingly, the Tribunal has
disposed of the OA by extending the relief granted in Subodh Kumar
mutatis mutandis to the respondent. Paras 25.1 to 27 of the impugned
judgment read thus:
“25.1 We, therefore, set aside and quash the Impugned Order
dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure 1).
25.2 To put a quietus to the issue, it is deemed appropriate in
fitness of the facts of the case by disposing of the present OA with
directions as one time measure, the applicants' rights should be
considered in realistic and positive manner with similarly situated
persons who were afforded the appointment pursuant to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in Subodh Kumar
(supra) paras 24 and 25, which have already been reproduced
above for the sake of brevity.
26. Needless, to say that the above directions have been passed
in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as one time
measure, and same shall not be construed to be a precedent. On
passing appropriate order, the respondents shall issue offer of
appointments to the applicants herein, who shall not be entitled to
claim seniority and any arrears of salary.
27. The OA is disposed of with above directions with no order
as to the costs.”
8. The GNCTD has challenged the aforesaid judgment of the
Tribunal before us by means of the present writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:42
W.P.(C) 13467/2023 Page 6 of 7

9. We have heard Mr. N.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent.
10. While defending the petition, Mr. Singh is fairly unable to
distinguish the position of the present respondent, vis-à-vis the
applicants in Subodh Kumar . He, therefore, submits that, if at all this
Court is inclined to grant relief, the relief would have to be limited to
that which was extended to applicants in Subodh Kumar as reflected
in the order dated 30 April 2015, extracted supra .
11. In the circumstances, we see no error in the decision of the
Tribunal to dispose of the OA in the present case following its earlier
decision in Subodh Kumar, which had attained finality upto the
Supreme Court.
12. In the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition by
clarifying that the respondent would be entitled to the same benefits as
was extended to the applicants in the case of Subodh Kumar , and as
reflected in Office Order dated 30 April 2015 supra read with second
Office Order dated 6 July 2015.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 27, 2026/s
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:42
W.P.(C) 13467/2023 Page 7 of 7