Piyush Kumar Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st th
Reserved on: 31 July, 2026 & on 17 August, 2026.
st
Pronounced on: 01 September, 2026.
st
Uploaded on: 01 September, 2026.

+ W.P.(C) 3843/2026
PIYUSH KUMAR SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
With
W.P.(C) 5716/2026, W.P.(C) 2601/2026, W.P.(C) 2691/2026, W.P.(C)
2728/2026, W.P.(C) 3768/2026 & W.P.(C) 3863/2026 & W.P.(C)
8700/2026, W.P.(C) 3091/2026

For Petitioners : Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Ravi Prakash, Mr. Giriraj Kaushal, Mr. Anurag
Atulya, Mr. Gaganpreet Singh, Ms. Pnerna Kant
and Mr. Shahrukh Qureshi, Advocates in Item Nos.
5, 25 to 27.
Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Mr. Sanjiv Saluja, Ms. Shrieya
Gosain, Advocates in item no. 24.
Mr. Anukul Raj, Ms. Nikita Raj, Mr. Tushar Bhalla,
Mr. Naveen, Mr. Vishal Yadav and Mr. Vishal
Arun Mishra, Advocates in Item No. 28.
Mr. Punit Rathi, Advocate in Item Nos. 25-27.
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Sarvesh Mehra and Ms.
Rupal Gupta, Advocates in Item No. 29.
Mr. Ashish Negi, Advocate in W.P.(C) 3091/2026.

For Respondents : Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Akshay Sharma,
Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi and
Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advocates for UOI in Item No.
4.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Tushar Sannu,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 1 of 40

SC with Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj, Ms. Malvi Balyan,
Mr. Devvrat Tiwari and Ms. Diksha Punia,
Advocates for WAPCOS in Item Nos. 4, 5 & 24 to
29
Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC with Ms. Katyayani Joshi, GP
for R-1 in Item 29.
Ms. Archana Kumari, G.P. for UOI in Item No. 24.
Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, SPC with Mr. Umar Hashmi,
Mr. Ayush Kumar, Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Advocates and
Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, G.P. for UOI in Item No. 26.
Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Mr. Vineet Negi,
Ms. Kavya Shukla and Mr. Vibhav V. Nath,
Advocates in Item Nos. 25 & 27.
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC Ms. Katyayani Joshi,
GP with Mr. Amit Dutta and Ms. Monalisha
Pradhan, Advocates for UOI in Item Nos. 28, 29.
Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC with Mr. Deepansh Sharma,
G.P. and Mr. Prakhar Negi, Advocates for R-1. Mr.
Tushar Sannu, SC with Mr. Devvrat Tiwari,
Advocates for WAPCOS in W.P.(C) 3091/2026.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
The Controversy
1. These petitions arise from WAPCOS’s decision to discontinue the
contractual engagements of a large body of employees, many of whom had
served for several years and some for more than a decade. Their grievance is
not merely that their contracts were brought to an end. It is that WAPCOS
repeatedly renewed those engagements, continued to deploy them in
institutional roles, and yet never considered them under the route to regular
appointment contemplated by its own Recruitment and Promotion Rules
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 2 of 40

(“R&P Rules”). The real question, therefore, is whether WAPCOS could
allow such engagements to continue for years beyond the five-year threshold
fixed by those Rules and then bring them to an end by relying upon their
contractual character, without ever undertaking the consideration which the
Rules themselves envisaged.
th
2. On 10 November, 2025, WAPCOS took a policy decision to
discontinue further extensions of contractual engagements in non-technical
categories. In most of these petitions, this was followed by substantially
th
identical notices dated 30 January, 2026, informing the employees that their
th
engagements would cease on 28 February, 2026. In two petitions, the
contractual terms had already come to an end in December, 2025 pursuant to
the same policy decision. The service histories were, however, very different.
Some employees had served for about four years, many for a decade or more,
and a few for over fifteen years. Several had moved from consolidated
remuneration to contractual pay scales. In a number of cases, WAPCOS had
only months earlier extended the very engagements which it now proposed to
discontinue.
3. If these were ordinary fixed-term contracts that simply came to an end,
the controversy would be much narrower. WAPCOS is entitled to organise its
establishment, reassess its manpower requirements, adopt technology and
decide not to continue contractual appointments indefinitely. The difficulty
for them arises from its own Rules.
4. The R&P Rules did not treat contractual employment as a closed
category from which movement into regular service was impossible.
Annexure V contemplated that suitable and efficient contractual employees
who had rendered at least five years of contractual service could be given
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 3 of 40

preference and opportunity for regular appointment, subject to vacancies,
suitability and assessment by a Selection Committee. Many of the Petitioners
crossed that point years ago. They continued to work and their contracts
continued to be renewed. Yet, on the record before the Court, their cases were
not considered under that provision before WAPCOS decided to discontinue
further extensions.
5. The dispute, therefore, is not a simple contest between contractual
appointment and regular service. Long service, by itself, creates no right to
regular appointment. The present case raises a different question: whether
employees who had entered the zone of consideration under WAPCOS’s own
Rules could be kept there for years without a decision, and then discontinued
without that exercise ever being undertaken.
6. As the proceedings progressed, a wider concern surfaced. When asked
to explain how the R&P Rules had been applied in the past, WAPCOS
disclosed that a substantial number of contractual employees had been
regularised over the years. It also stated that a later review had revealed
serious irregularities in several such exercises. The record therefore raised a
question not only about the Petitioners’ individual contracts, but also about
how WAPCOS had administered movement from contractual to regular
employment.
7. The case cannot be decided merely by repeating that a contractual
employee has no right to indefinite continuation or that length of service alone
does not confer regular status. Both propositions are settled. The question is
what follows when the manner of entry, length and continuity of service,
qualifications, nature of work, conduct of the employer and WAPCOS’s own
regular-appointment framework are considered together.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 4 of 40

Factual background
8. For convenience, the factual narrative is drawn principally from
W.P.(C) 2601/2026, filed by Ms. Sandhya Saluja, and W.P.(C) 2691/2026,
filed by Mr. Kuldeep Singh and 33 others. The remaining petitions challenge
the same policy and arise from broadly similar employment arrangements,
though individual periods of service, modes of entry and contractual histories
vary. Those differences become important when relief is considered.
From temporary engagement to long institutional service
9. Ms. Sandhya Saluja’s case is an appropriate starting point. She entered
WAPCOS as a Training Expert under an order which expressly described the
engagement as temporary and terminable even before completion of the
stipulated period. The order stated:
“The engagement of Ms. Sandhya Saluja, Training Expert is purely
temporary and this arrangement may cease at any time even prior to the
completion period of engagement without assigning any reason
thereof.”

10. That was the basis on which she first entered WAPCOS. The
relationship did not, however, end with a short assignment. Her engagement
was renewed year after year. By 2018, the record shows her dealing with
WAPCOS’s institutional skilling targets and Ministry-related
correspondence. A document concerning “Skilling Achievement 2017-18 and
Target 2018-19” records her name as Training Expert.
11. In 2022, she was moved to the contractual pay-scale stream as Office
th
Manager. On 30 September, 2025, WAPCOS again extended her
st
engagement in the Human Resources Division, Gurugram, from 1 October,
th th
2025 to 30 September, 2026. Four months later, by notice dated 30 January,
th
2026, she was required to leave on 28 February, 2026.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 5 of 40

12. These facts do not, by themselves, answer the question of
regularisation. They do, however, show why the matter cannot be concluded
merely by describing the initial appointment as “temporary”. The nature of
such an engagement must also be examined in light of the manner of
recruitment, duration and continuity of service, nature of duties, and the
employer’s own conduct. On that view, what began as a short-term
engagement did not remain a brief arrangement; through repeated extensions
by WAPCOS, it developed over twelve years into continuous service in the
institution.
The larger cohort and the range of service
13. This pattern recurs in W.P.(C) 2691/2026. The Petitioners there have
set out their employment history in tabular form. Since the length and
continuity of service assume significance in the analysis that follows, the
relevant particulars are reproduced below:
Joining year/ pleaded
No. Petitioner Designation
service
1 Kuldeep Singh Field Assistant 2009 / 16 years
2 Sher Singh Rawat Messenger 2011 / 14 years
3 Ramkewal Junior Assistant 2011 / 14 years
4 Sunil Messenger 2011 / 14 years
5 Rajesh Kumar Staff-cum-Driver 2012 / 13 years
6 Rajnish Koundle Office Assistant 2012 / 13 years
7 Bhimsen Attendant 2013 / 12 years
8 Sandeep Yadav Office Manager 2012 / 13 years
9 Pallavi Pandey Assistant 2014 / 11 years
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 6 of 40

Joining year/ pleaded
No. Petitioner Designation
service
Manager
10 Santosh Kumar Bharti Helper 2009 / 16 years
11 Sujit Kumar Yadav Junior Assistant 2012 / 14 years
12 Devidas Wankhade Field Attendant 2011 / 15 years
13 Bablu Barman Cook 2012 / 13 years
14 Surender Kumar Field Assistant 2012 / 13 years
Patel Kamleshkumar
15
Messenger 2011 / 14 years
Jagdishbhai
16 Mukesh Kumar Messenger Gr-II 2012 / 13 years
17 Naresh Kumar Messenger 2013 / 12 years
18 Sanjay Dhondiyal Office Assistant 2014 / 11 years
19 Raj Kumar Messenger 2013 / 12 years
20 Shashank Rana Office Manager 2013 / 12 years
21 Dharam Singh Rawat Messenger 2014 / 11 years
22 Bhagat Singh Messenger Gr-III 2014 / 11 years
23 Hitesh Deputy Manager 2015 / 10 years
24 Anjali Kumari Junior Assistant 2015 / 11 years
Media Relations
25 Arvind Singh Tomar
2015 / 11 years
Officer
26 Nilesh Bhatt Accountant 2015 / 11 years
Caretaker-cum-
27 A. Ranganathan
2015 / 10 years
Watchman
28 Shikha Rani Junior Assistant 2015 / 11 years
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 7 of 40

Joining year/ pleaded
No. Petitioner Designation
service
29 Sandeep Field Assistant 2015 / 10 years
30 Pramod Kumar Messenger 2016 / 10 years
2016/9 years 11
31 Piyush Singh Assistant
months
2016/ 9 years 6
32 Deepak Kumar Junior PA
months
2010-13 and from
2020 onwards/
33 Rohit Sharma Office Assistant
aggregate 8 years;
present spell above 5
years
2010-13 and from
2021 onwards/
34 Sumit Field Assistant
aggregate 8.5 years;
present spell above 5
years

14. The table shows a substantial range in service length. Several
Petitioners claim between ten and sixteen years. Piyush Singh was shown,
when the petition was filed, at 9 years and 11 months and Deepak Kumar at 9
years and 6 months. Rohit Sharma and Sumit had interrupted earlier spells but
had crossed five years in their present engagements.
15. These figures are pleaded and the precise periods must ultimately be
verified from the service records. They are nevertheless relevant because a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 8 of 40

decade of service has figured in several recent decisions concerning long-
serving temporary employees. That does not make ten years a statutory cut-
off. Nor would it be appropriate, on these facts, to place an employee with 9
years and 11 months of service in a fundamentally different class from a
colleague with ten years merely because the impugned action intervened a
few weeks earlier. Length of service has to be assessed in context.
16. The connected petition filed by Dayakishan Joshi and others illustrates
the other end of the range. Most of those Petitioners claim between six and
nine years of service, including Dayakishan Joshi, Megha Pokhriyal, Mohit
Goel, Nimmi Bharti, Dipika, Neha Gupta and others. Sangeet Sharma and
Harsh Kumar Sharma, however, were shown as having served only about four
years when their petition was filed.
17. They cannot, however, be granted the same relief merely because they
received notices in substantially identical terms. The nature of judicial
intervention must turn on the length and continuity of service, the stage
reached under the R&P Rules, and the other petitioner-specific circumstances.
WAPCOS’s November 2025 policy decision
th
18. The Office Order dated 10 November, 2025 is important also for
WAPCOS’s own account of the position which preceded it. The Order
recorded that contractual engagements originally made for short-term
administrative or project requirements had, in several cases, continued
through successive extensions even after the original exigency had ceased. It
stated:
“a number of such engagements have continued through successive
extensions, even in cases where the original exigency no longer
exists/project completed.”

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 9 of 40

19. WAPCOS stated that it wished to prevent contractual appointments
from assuming “the character of continuing or quasi-permanent
employment”. Referring to digital processes, outsourcing and integrated
service delivery, it concluded that future operational requirements could be
met through internal redeployment, automation and need-based outsourcing
rather than repeated extensions. It therefore decided to discontinue the
practice of granting further extensions to non-technical contractual
employees.
20. The policy itself thus records that successive extensions had carried
some engagements well beyond the short-term requirements for which they
began. WAPCOS was entitled to decide that this practice should not continue
indefinitely.
21. However, what the policy did not address was the position of
employees who had already crossed the five-year stage under the existing
1
R&P Rules. Nor did it repeal, supersede or amend Guideline (j), which
WAPCOS had historically followed. No Board decision withdrawing that
provision has been also placed before the Court.
th
The notices dated 30 January, 2026
22. The November policy was implemented in two ways. In W.P.(C)
3768/2026 and W.P.(C) 8700/2026, the contractual terms came to an end in
December, 2025 and were not renewed. In the remaining petitions, however,
th
WAPCOS issued individual notices dated 30 January, 2026 which went
further. Rather than allowing the existing terms to run their course, the notices
invoked Clause 7 and sought to bring the engagements to an end on one

1
Guideline (j), in its original and subsequently amended form, is set out in paragraphs 42 and 47,
respectively.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 10 of 40

month’s notice. Clause 7 reads:
“That the contract of service can be terminated by either party by giving
one month notice or salary in lieu of notice.”

23. Kuldeep Singh’s notice, for example, referred to a “comprehensive
review of organisational, administrative, and functional requirements,
including rationalisation and optimisation of contractual manpower”. It stated
th
that personnel in the relevant category would not be required after 28
February, 2026, described the decision as one driven by organisational
considerations, and invoked Clause 7. The other notices are materially similar.
24. The representations made immediately thereafter show the practical
st
effect of the notices. Shikha Rani wrote on 31 January, 2026 that she was
th
being required to leave in February despite an extension up to 30 September,
2026 and more than ten years of service. Piyush Singh, whose pleaded service
then fell just short of ten years, referred to the professional uncertainty caused
by the decision and sought consideration for regularisation.
25. These service histories are relevant in assessing the character the
employment acquired over time, WAPCOS’s continued need for the work
performed, and whether its own Rule-based mechanism ought to have been
addressed before the engagements were discontinued.
How the litigation evolved
26. The course of these proceedings is relevant because the regularisation
issue did not fully emerge at the first hearing.
th
27. On 27 February, 2026, the immediate concern was the proposed mid-
term discontinuance. WAPCOS relied upon Clause 7, manpower
rationalisation, automation and ERP implementation, reduction of manual
work in HR, Finance and Administration, financial and operational pressures
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 11 of 40

including high debtor days, and its assurance that the Petitioners would not be
replaced by outsourced personnel.
28. WAPCOS was therefore directed to place the reasons for its action on
affidavit and to produce “the material that informed the decision”.
29. Interim protection was confined to the contractual terms already
st th
granted by WAPCOS, which were due to expire between 31 March and 30
September, 2026. The order expressly clarified that it did not extend any
contract or create a right to regularisation.
30. W.P.(C) 3091/2026 was filed later. Two Petitioners there had already
th
been prevented from resuming duty after 28 February although their
st
contractual terms continued until 31 March. Their counsel acknowledged
that they ought to have approached the Court earlier. The Court nevertheless
found no material distinction and extended the same limited protection until
the stipulated expiry date.
th
31. On 27 March, 2026, Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners, drew attention to the five-year provision in WAPCOS’s own
Rules. She submitted that employees who had served for ten to fifteen years
had never been considered under that provision, even though a substantial
number of contractual employees with much shorter service had earlier been
regularised.
32. WAPCOS did not dispute those earlier regularisations. Mr. Chetan
Sharma, ASG, stated that approximately 190 contractual employees had been
regularised under a policy which left the matter to the discretion of the
management.
33. That answer led to a further enquiry. The Court called for the
advertisements or notices, criteria, evaluation process, Selection Committee
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 12 of 40

recommendations, minutes and other contemporaneous material relating to
the earlier exercises. WAPCOS was also directed to clarify whether the
Petitioners had worked against sanctioned posts and to disclose its sanctioned
strength and vacancy position.
34. When WAPCOS examined its records for that purpose, the position
changed materially. Its additional affidavit disclosed that approximately 195
contractual employees had been regularised in phases over the years. The
review then undertaken, according to WAPCOS, disclosed deficiencies in
several exercises: sanctioned vacancies were not always identified, eligibility
and qualifications were not consistently verified, performance and suitability
were not assessed through a demonstrable structure, and a Selection
Committee process in the form contemplated by the Rules was not always
evident from the record. WAPCOS also pointed to discrepancies in
designations and pay scales.
35. WAPCOS thereafter initiated corrective proceedings and ultimately
issued show-cause notices in a large number of cases. The validity of those
earlier regularisations, and of the corrective action subsequently taken, is not
being decided in these petitions.
36. WAPCOS also placed its financial condition and establishment
strength in issue. Since those matters were relied upon to justify the decision
under challenge, the Court required WAPCOS to file the audited financial
material and the contemporaneous record relating to surrender of posts.
37. The material subsequently filed showed that the restructuring proposal
th
was dated 24 June, 2026. It proposed surrender of 682 vacant posts, creation
of 51 below-Board-level posts and a revised sanctioned strength of 910
against 814 employees then in position. Even on that revised strength, 96 posts
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 13 of 40

remained vacant, including 32 non-technical posts.
38. The chronology is important. The November policy and the January
notices preceded the June restructuring proposal. That proposal may be
relevant to WAPCOS’s present establishment position and to future
manpower decisions. It cannot, however, be treated as the contemporaneous
material or retrospectively supply the basis for the earlier decision to
discontinue the Petitioners’ engagements.
The rival positions
39. The Petitioners’ case is straightforward. They contend that WAPCOS
recruited them, retained them year after year, moved many into contractual
pay scales, deployed them on continuing institutional functions and yet never
applied the five-year mechanism contained in its own Rules. They rely upon
the earlier regularisations not as a demand that an illegality be repeated, but
as part of the history of WAPCOS’s treatment of its contractual workforce.
The later discovery of defects in some of those exercises, they submit, cannot
justify denying them lawful consideration altogether.
40. WAPCOS’s answer is also clear. It submits that each appointment
remained contractual and that the terms conferred no right to extension,
seniority or regular appointment. Guideline (j), according to WAPCOS, is
discretionary and depends upon vacancies, suitability and management
assessment. It also contends that the Petitioners have not established
constitutionally compliant initial entry through an open and competitive
process, were not appointed against sanctioned regular posts, cannot rely on
earlier regularisations as a foundation for negative equality, and that its
present manpower requirements have changed because of restructuring and
technology, against a background of financial and operational constraints.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 14 of 40

41. The controversy cannot be resolved by the ‘contractual’ or ‘temporary’
label alone, nor by length of service alone. The constitutional principles
governing public employment must be applied in the context of the service
framework which WAPCOS itself created and administered.
The WAPCOS Recruitment and Promotion Rules
42. The R&P Rules add an important feature to the regularisation claims in
this batch. They expressly recognise contractual engagement and also provide
a route by which contractual employees could be considered for regular
appointment. The relevant portion is extracted below:
“j) Wherever any regular vacancies arises, the contract employees may be
given an opportunity to compete with other candidates. They would be given
relaxation in respect of age etc. but no benefit for serving WAPCOS since
benefits may come in conflict with the interest of other candidates from open
market.

43. Clause 11.2 sets out the basic structure. The Rules apply to
appointments against regular requirements and sanctioned posts in the
Delhi/Gurugram headquarters establishment. Short-term project
requirements, whether at the field, site or headquarters, could be met through
contractual, deputation or ad hoc appointments for the duration of the project,
with the approval of the CMD. Contractual employment was to be regulated
by Annexure V.
44. Annexure V, titled “Guidelines for Hiring of Contract Employees”,
prescribed the manner of contractual engagement. In Delhi/Gurugram, panels
were contemplated through newspaper advertisements and names obtained
from Employment Exchanges, followed by interviews. At regional offices and
project sites, public processes were contemplated for larger requirements,
while smaller requirements could be met from applications received by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 15 of 40

Company. Advertised walk-in interviews were permitted in urgent cases. A
later amendment also recognised applications received through the careers
section of WAPCOS’s website, walk-in interviews and applications received
directly from interested candidates.
45. Annexure V also recognised that contractual requirements could extend
beyond an initial term. Extensions depended upon continuing requirements.
Contract employees were ordinarily to receive consolidated remuneration. For
longer project requirements, however, the management could consider the pay
scale and allowances of an equivalent post, including where regular-cadre
personnel were unavailable for project work or for work “of regular nature
against the regular vacancy”.
46. Placement in a contractual pay scale did not make the employee regular
or establish, by itself, occupation of a sanctioned permanent post. It is
nevertheless part of the factual setting because Annexure V itself
contemplated contractual service extending beyond a brief assignment and, in
appropriate cases, deployment against work of a regular nature.
47. Guideline (j) lies at the centre of the controversy. As noted above, its
original formulation contemplated an opportunity for contractual employees
to compete for regular vacancies, with relaxation in age and other eligibility
th th
conditions. The amendment approved in the 180 Board Meeting held on 25
June, 2010 added the following:
“Suitable and efficient contract employees, who have rendered at least 5
years contract service in the Company, can be given preference and
opportunity, at the discretion of the management, for regular appointment
against direct recruitment vacancies including vacancies against
deputation quota, subject to their suitability.”

48. The provision further contemplated assessment by a Selection
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 16 of 40

Committee of the employee’s performance on the job, qualifications,
experience and suitability before recommendation for regular appointment.
49. Read as a whole, Guideline (j) has three features relevant to the present
controversy.
50. First, five years did not confer regular status. Guideline (j) speaks of
preference and opportunity, not automatic absorption. Regular appointment
remained dependent upon suitability and the recruitment and vacancy
framework applicable to the post.
51. Second, the five-year stipulation nevertheless has operative content. It
marks the point at which a suitable and efficient contractual employee
becomes eligible for the preferential route under Guideline (j). Whether that
route leads to regular appointment remains subject to suitability, vacancies
and the discretion of management. However, where the record shows that
WAPCOS had itself invoked this mechanism in the past to move contractual
employees into regular service, it could not leave the provision unaddressed
in the case of other eligible employees whom it continued to retain through
successive extensions.
52. Third, the discretion reserved to management was not unfettered. It had
to be exercised on relevant and objective considerations. WAPCOS could
reject a claim for legally sustainable reasons, such as an impermissible initial
entry, lack of qualification or suitability, an adverse service record, absence
of an appropriate vacancy, or cessation of genuinely project-specific work. It
could not, however, retain Guideline (j) in the Rules while leaving eligible
claims unaddressed through successive extensions.
53. Five years therefore matters in this batch for one simple reason:
WAPCOS defined that period.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 17 of 40

54. Service beyond five years has a different effect. It does not create
another statutory threshold, but it may strengthen the substantive claim. An
employee retained briefly after five years and another retained for a further
five or ten years both fall within Guideline (j), but their service histories are
plainly not the same.
55. The further years of service are therefore not merely incidental. They
may indicate that the work was recurring, that WAPCOS continued to require
and accept the employee’s services, and that the Rule-based consideration
remained unattended despite a continuing relationship
What the law permits
2
56. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi remains the starting point.
Public employment must conform to the constitutional scheme under Articles
14 and 16. Regularisation is not a mode of recruitment and cannot cure an
appointment made in violation of that scheme or the applicable recruitment
rules.
3
57. State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari explained the limited one-time
exercise contemplated in paragraph 53 of Umadevi . It clarified that the ten-
year requirement under that exercise referred to employees who had
th
completed the stipulated period as on 10 April, 2006, subject to the other
conditions in Umadevi .
4
58. Jaggo v. Union of India concerned workers engaged by the Central
Water Commission as Safaiwalis and Khallasi/Mali on part-time or ad hoc
terms, who continued for long periods in housekeeping and support functions

2
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
3
(2010) 9 SCC 247.
4
2024 SCC OnLine 3826.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 18 of 40

necessary to the functioning of the establishment. The Supreme Court did not
treat Umadevi as a bar merely because the initial engagement was not regular.
It looked instead to the substance of the relationship: there was no finding of
an illegal or surreptitious entry, the duties were recurrent and integral to the
office, and the employees had rendered prolonged and unblemished service.
On that basis, the Court set aside the termination and directed regularisation,
while declining back wages for the period during which no work was
performed.
5
59. Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand is closer to the present context.
There, sanctioned posts of Junior Engineer had been advertised, the
employees entered through a selection process and the State continued them
through repeated contractual renewals for more than a decade. The Supreme
Court granted substantive relief of regularization holding that the employer
could not rely on contractual nomenclature alone after having taken their
services in that manner for such a length of time.
6
60. Madan Singh v. State of Haryana , relied upon by WAPCOS, marks
the limits of that approach. The Supreme Court declined to sustain a
regularisation policy which extended to employees whose initial engagement
was made without public advertisement or interview, and where the record
did not inspire confidence as to the manner of their engagement. The decision
therefore reinforces Umadevi ’s central rule: long service cannot legitimise an
entry which was constitutionally impermissible at inception. It does not,
however, justify treating every contractual appointment as illegal, or
excluding the relevance of long service where the employee entered through

5
2026 INSC 99.
6
2026 INSC 379.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 19 of 40

a recognised and fair process and the employer’s own Rules contemplated
consideration for regular appointment.
7
61. In Pawan Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi , a Division Bench
of this Court granted regularisation to long-serving nursing and para-medical
personnel whose entry mirrored a regular recruitment process, who possessed
the prescribed qualifications and who had discharged continuing institutional
functions for many years.
62. That judgment was carried to the Supreme Court in Government of
8
NCT of Delhi v. Pawan Sharma . The Supreme Court declined to interfere
with the direction to regularise. It modified the judgment only to protect the
seniority of persons regularly appointed in the interregnum and directed that
the employees being regularised would rank below them.
9
63. In Mohd. Ansari v. Delhi Technological University , this Court dealt
with employees engaged in 2010-11 pursuant to public advertisements and a
selection process who had continued for about fifteen years. The Court
directed a structured examination of sanctioned strength and vacancies,
including creation or augmentation of posts where necessary, followed by
consideration for regularisation.
64. The cross-appeals from that judgment were decided by the Division
Bench in Om Prakash Gaur & Ors. v. Delhi Technological University and
10 th
Delhi Technological University v. Mohd. Ansari & Ors . on 19 August,
2026. The Division Bench noticed that the employees had been engaged in

7
2025:DHC:9789-DB.
8 th
In SLP (C) No. 17550/2026, decided on 14 May, 2026.
9 th
In W.P.(C) 10830/2020, decided on 10 March, 2026.
10
2026:DHC:6891-DB.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 20 of 40

2010-11 through public walk-in/advertised selections, at a time when formal
recruitment rules were not in place, and had thereafter served continuously
for about fifteen years in recurring institutional functions. It treated the initial
engagement, in that setting, as irregular rather than illegal and held that
Umadevi could not be used as a blanket bar to deny regularisation. The Bench
directed regularisation against available posts and, where an appropriate
vacancy or sanctioned post was not available, by creation of personal
supernumerary posts, without disturbing the rights of regular employees.
65. The thread running through these decisions is not that time spent in
contractual service, by itself, commands regularisation. The enquiry is more
exacting. It requires the Court to examine the legality of the initial entry, the
employee’s qualifications, the continuity and duration of service, the nature
of the work performed, the service record, and the employer’s own conduct
in allowing a temporary arrangement to mature into a long working
relationship.
66. Long service is therefore a substantial factor, but never an isolated one.
Five years is the Rule-based threshold; long service affects the remedy
67. The Petitioners before the Court range from about four to sixteen years
of service. The significance of that difference has to be understood first
through WAPCOS’s own Rules.
68. Five years has distinct legal significance because Guideline (j) itself
prescribes that period. A contractual employee who completes five years
enters the zone of consideration created by that provision. An employee who
does not complete that period cannot invoke Guideline (j). Any claim to
regularisation outside that provision must therefore rest on an independent
legal basis. None has been established in these petitions for employees below
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 21 of 40

the five-year threshold.
69. Service beyond five years remains relevant. Repeated renewal after the
five-year point may demonstrate the enduring nature of the work and
WAPCOS’s continuing reliance upon the employee, particularly where the
mechanism contemplated by the Rule was never applied.
70. A decade of service is not an independent statutory threshold. Its
relevance here is factual and remedial. Where an employee has continued for
several years after entering the field contemplated by Guideline (j), the Court
must consider whether a mere direction for consideration under that provision
would still provide an effective remedy, or whether the cumulative service
record warrants substantive relief.
71. The period of service cannot, for that purpose, be frozen on the date on
which the writ petition was filed. Piyush Singh and Deepak Kumar, for
instance, were then pleaded to have completed 9 years and 11 months and 9
years and 6 months respectively. To the extent that they and other Petitioners
thereafter continued to render service during contractual terms already
granted by WAPCOS, that actual service must also be counted. The interim
orders did not create or extend their contractual tenure; they merely prevented
premature discontinuance during an existing term.
72. Ten years is therefore used in this judgment only to identify the long-
service cohort for the purpose of moulding relief. It is not itself a source of
entitlement. The relief granted to that cohort rests upon the cumulative
circumstances already identified, including the manner of entry,
qualifications, length and continuity of service, repeated renewals, nature of
the work and WAPCOS’s failure to address Guideline (j) over the intervening
years.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 22 of 40

73. Employees with only three or four years of service stand differently.
They had not crossed even the threshold fixed by WAPCOS itself and cannot
invoke Guideline (j) merely from the fact of contractual employment.
Entry into service: what does the record show?
74. Long service cannot cure an illegal entry. That principle from Umadevi
remains fully applicable. But the enquiry cannot begin from the opposite
assumption that a contractual appointment is illegal merely because it is
contractual.
75. Annexure V itself recognised and regulated contractual recruitment.
The contractual framework under which WAPCOS made such engagements
was therefore part of its own R&P structure. The relevant question is whether
the particular employee entered through a mode recognised by that framework
and consistent with the minimum requirements of fair public employment.
76. There is material showing how that system operated. The Petitioners in
W.P.(C) 2691/2026 state on affidavit that their appointments followed public
advertisements, the WAPCOS Data Bank or Employment Exchange route,
scrutiny of qualifications and interviews. WAPCOS recruitment notices
placed on record also show Data Bank recruitment for categories such as
Office Manager, Accountant, Office Assistant, Field Assistant, Work
Assistant and Messenger, followed by shortlisting and interview. Later
material refers to skill tests or interviews and reservation requirements.
77. These documents do not establish the individual recruitment history of
every Petitioner. They are nevertheless significant because they contradict the
suggestion that contractual engagement at WAPCOS was necessarily a
private or clandestine mode of entry.
78. Ms. Sandhya Saluja’s case illustrates the point. She states that she was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 23 of 40

interviewed before engagement. WAPCOS accepts that she joined as a
th
Consultant on 6 February, 2014. Its objection is that her engagement
remained contractual and was not against a sanctioned regular post. However,
what is absent is any allegation that she entered through private nomination,
patronage, fraud, misrepresentation or some clandestine process.
79. The original counter-affidavits likewise did not set up a petitioner-wise
case of backdoor entry. WAPCOS relied more generally upon the contractual
nature of the appointments, absence of appointment against sanctioned
permanent posts, and absence of the recruitment process applicable to regular
appointments. In one counter-affidavit, while dealing with Guideline (j), it
also stated that the provision could not assist contractual appointees who had
not undergone an open recruitment process.
80. These enquiries must be kept distinct. A person not recruited directly
to a regular post is not, for that reason alone, a backdoor entrant. Annexure V
created a recognised route for contractual recruitment. Entry through that
route did not make the employee regular from inception, but the absence of
regular-post recruitment did not, by itself, render the contractual entry illegal.
81. WAPCOS developed this objection in its later affidavit by asserting
that the employees had not entered through a regular, open and competitive
process. The assertion, however, remained a general objection. It did not
identify, petitioner by petitioner, the specific defect which made the initial
contractual entry constitutionally impermissible.
82. That distinction matters because the primary records of recruitment are
principally in WAPCOS’s custody. For employees engaged ten or fifteen
years ago, an advertisement, panel or interview sheet may no longer be
immediately available. Such incompleteness in the record may call for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 24 of 40

verification. It does not, without more, establish that the employee entered
through a private, clandestine or otherwise impermissible route.
83. Any exclusion on the ground of illegal entry must rest upon
contemporaneous material concerning that employee. The contractual label,
absence of an initial sanctioned regular post, or mere non-availability of an
old file will not suffice.
84. This does not dilute Umadevi . If contemporaneous material shows a
private nomination, patronage, absence of a required fair process, want of
prescribed qualification, fraud, misrepresentation or other clandestine
induction, long service cannot cure the defect. Nevertheless, such illegality
must be established, not presumed.
The earlier regularisations
85. The Petitioners also rely upon the earlier regularisations, approximately
195 in number, to claim similar treatment. That claim cannot succeed merely
on parity. WAPCOS’s own review has identified serious irregularities in
several of those exercises and corrective proceedings have followed. About
171 show-cause notices were issued in July, 2026, while other cases remained
under review. Some of those measures have themselves been challenged
before this Court, including in Ankur Verma & Ors. v. WAPCOS , W.P.(C)
11703/2026.
86. Yet the earlier regularisations are not irrelevant. They show that
WAPCOS had, over the years, moved contractual employees into regular
service. Their relevance is limited to demonstrating that such movement
formed part of WAPCOS’s own service framework; they do not establish the
legality of the individual exercises.
87. Article 14 does not require WAPCOS to repeat an irregular
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 25 of 40

regularisation exercise, and the Petitioners cannot claim appointment on that
basis alone. But the irregularities now identified by WAPCOS do not
extinguish Guideline (j). So long as that provision remains part of the R&P
Rules, employees falling within it are entitled to have their claims dealt with
lawfully.
The reach of the November policy
88. WAPCOS was entitled to decide that its future manpower model would
not depend upon repeated extensions of non-technical contractual employees.
The November policy addressed a concern which WAPCOS itself had
identified: engagements made for short-term requirements had, through
successive extensions, continued far beyond their original purpose.
89. That was a legitimate organisational choice. There is therefore no
th
ground to quash the Office Order dated 10 November, 2025 merely because
it sought to rationalise the contractual establishment for the future.
90. The policy could not, however, treat existing claims as though they had
never arisen. It did not repeal Guideline (j), nor did it address the position of
employees who had crossed the five-year stage years earlier and were
thereafter repeatedly retained. Their claims had to be dealt with
notwithstanding the subsequent change in policy.
The financial constraints and manpower restructuring defences
91. WAPCOS pressed its financial position with some emphasis during the
proceedings. The Court approaches that issue with restraint. Profitability does
not necessarily mean financial comfort; a public sector company may face
receivable delays, liquidity pressures and operational constraints despite
reporting profits.
92. The audited material does show financial and project-related concerns.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 26 of 40

It does not, however, support the description advanced during hearing of
WAPCOS being a “sinking ship” whose survival depended upon
discontinuance of these employees. More importantly, WAPCOS
subsequently clarified that financial non-viability was not being relied upon
as an independent ground to defeat the Petitioners’ claims.
93. There is also no contemporaneous quantified financial assessment on
record linking the financial indicators now relied upon to the Office Order
th th
dated 10 November, 2025 or the notices dated 30 January, 2026. The
financial material therefore cannot answer the regularisation claims.
94. The manpower restructuring requires similar care. The Court is not
called upon to determine whether WAPCOS should have a sanctioned
strength of 1,541, 910 or any other figure. The restructuring exercise of June,
2026 may govern its establishment prospectively and its validity is not under
challenge here.
95. Its relevance to the impugned action is limited by chronology. A
th
restructuring proposal prepared on 24 June, 2026 cannot retrospectively
become the review which the January notices stated had already informed the
decision to discontinue contractual personnel.
96. Nor does the figure of 682 surrendered vacancies establish absence of
all regular vacancies. WAPCOS’s own revised figures show 96 vacant posts
after restructuring, including 32 non-technical posts. Whether a particular
vacancy corresponds to a Petitioner’s post, cadre or recruitment quota is a
different question.
97. The later restructuring may therefore guide current and future
establishment decisions. It does not answer WAPCOS’s earlier failure to deal
with employees whose cases had entered the field contemplated by Guideline
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 27 of 40

(j) years before.
The effect of interim protection
98. The interim orders have altered the practical position. Employees
whose contracts were subsisting were permitted to continue only until the
expiry dates already fixed by WAPCOS. The Court did not extend those
contracts; it merely protected the employees against premature
discontinuance during the terms which WAPCOS itself had granted.
99. The legality of the January notices nevertheless requires determination.
Clause 7 conferred a contractual power to terminate an engagement on one
month’s notice. That power was not, however, unstructured merely because it
arose from contract. WAPCOS is an instrumentality of the State and its
contractual powers remain subject to Article 14. More importantly, the Office
th
Order dated 10 November, 2025 did not direct premature termination of
subsisting contracts. It decided to discontinue the practice of granting further
extensions.
th
100. The notices dated 30 January, 2026 travelled beyond that policy. They
sought to curtail contractual terms which WAPCOS itself had already granted,
in several cases only a few months earlier, by applying Clause 7 across the
category. No petitioner-specific material has been shown to demonstrate that
the particular requirement had ceased, that the employee had become surplus,
or that some intervening circumstance warranted premature termination of
that existing term. The later restructuring exercise of June, 2026 cannot
retrospectively supply that basis.
101. Clause 7 could therefore not be used as a blanket mechanism to bring
subsisting contractual terms to an end before their stipulated expiry merely
because WAPCOS had decided not to grant further extensions in future. To
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 28 of 40

that extent, the January notices were unsustainable. The interim orders
preserved the position which ought to have prevailed: the employees were
entitled to continue until the expiry of the contractual terms already granted
by WAPCOS. This conclusion does not prevent WAPCOS from declining
future extensions in accordance with the November policy, subject to the
separate claims considered in this judgment under Guideline (j).
102. A different position arises where the contractual term had already
expired before interim protection could operate. In W.P.(C) 3768/2026, for
st
example, WAPCOS states that the contracts expired on 31 December, 2025
and were not renewed. There was no subsisting contractual term in such cases
which Clause 7 purported to curtail.
Vacancies, sanctioned posts and the form of implementation
103. WAPCOS also relies upon the absence of sanctioned posts and
vacancies. The objection is relevant, but not conclusive. Regular appointment
must ordinarily be made within an authorised establishment. That does not
make the original contractual entry illegal merely because it was not to a
regular post. The availability of a corresponding vacancy becomes material
when regular appointment is considered and when relief is implemented.
104. The R&P framework itself makes the distinction clear. Annexure V
permitted contractual engagements, principally for project requirements,
without requiring them to be made against sanctioned regular posts. Guideline
(j) thereafter contemplated the consideration of such contractual employees
for regular appointment against available vacancies. The fact that a
contractual employee was not initially engaged against a sanctioned regular
post cannot, therefore, be used to characterise the entry itself as illegal or to
exclude the employee from the consideration contemplated by Guideline (j).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 29 of 40

The existence of an appropriate sanctioned vacancy becomes relevant at the
latter stage.
105. WAPCOS’s own figures also do not support a case of complete non-
availability of vacancies. The restructuring proposal contemplated surrender
of 682 vacant posts and creation of 51 posts. Even thereafter, the revised
sanctioned strength stood at 910 against 814 employees in position, leaving
96 vacancies, including 32 non-technical posts. Whether any such vacancy
corresponds to a particular Petitioner or falls within the applicable direct-
recruitment quota is a matter to be examined at the stage of implementation.
106. Nor can the absence of an immediately available vacancy be treated as
an absolute bar in every case. In Delhi Technical University , the Division
Bench directed consideration against available vacancies and further provided
that, where the relevant vacancy was unavailable or the post itself was not
sanctioned, personal supernumerary posts should be created for regularising
eligible employees.
107. The absence of an immediately available sanctioned post is therefore
not, by itself, a complete answer where an employee is otherwise found
entitled to substantive relief. WAPCOS must first consider an available
corresponding or equivalent vacancy. If none is available, a personal
supernumerary post may be created in the limited manner directed below,
without disturbing the cadre, reservation roster or rights of existing regular
employees.
Calibrating the relief
108. The Petitioners do not stand on the same footing. The appropriate relief
must therefore be calibrated, principally by reference to length of service, but
also by reference to the other considerations already discussed. Three
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 30 of 40

categories emerge.
A. Employees whose service has reached, or substantially approached, a
decade
109. The first category consists of employees whose contractual service has
extended to about a decade or more. By then, WAPCOS had continued the
engagement for several years after the employee crossed the five-year stage,
through successive extensions granted by WAPCOS itself.
110. The consequences are practical as well as legal. An employee who has
spent ten, twelve or fifteen years in one public-sector establishment has
devoted a substantial part of their working life to that employment. Many
may, by then, have crossed the ordinary age bands within which fresh entry
into comparable public employment is realistically available. More
importantly, the service history is itself evidence: it reflects repeated decisions
by WAPCOS to retain the employee, continued acceptance of the employee’s
work, and a prolonged failure to address the mechanism created by its own
Rules.
111. Length of service in such cases is therefore not merely an appeal to
sympathy or equity. Read with non-illegal entry, requisite qualifications,
satisfactory service and the authorities discussed above, the prolonged
retention of an employee in continuing institutional work materially affects
the form of relief.
112. For the purposes of this batch, Category A shall comprise Petitioners
who have completed ten years or more of actual contractual service with
WAPCOS or are within six months of completing that period. Service actually
rendered during a contractual term already granted by WAPCOS shall be
counted, notwithstanding that premature termination during that term was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 31 of 40

prevented by an interim order of this Court. The interim orders themselves
shall not be treated as having created or extended any contractual tenure.
113. The six-month margin is intended to avoid an artificial distinction
between materially similar service histories. Suman Yadav, in W.P.(C)
8700/2026, for instance, is pleaded to have rendered 9 years and 8 months of
st
service when her contractual engagement expired on 31 December, 2025. To
exclude her while including an employee whose already-granted contractual
term carried the latter across ten years would make the relief turn on a
difference of a few months. This classification is confined to the facts of this
batch; it does not make ten years, or nine years and six months, a general
threshold for regularisation.
114. In the case of Category A, another open-ended remand to the same
unexercised discretion would not provide an adequate remedy. The claim rests
upon the cumulative effect of long and substantially continuous service, the
manner of entry discussed above, repeated official renewals, continuing
institutional deployment, WAPCOS’s failure to undertake the Rule-based
exercise when it became relevant, and the principles recognised in Jaggo ,
Bhola Nath , Pawan Sharma and Om Prakash Gaur . Subject to the limited
verification directed below, these employees are entitled to regularisation.
B. Employees who completed five years but do not fall in Category A
115. The second category consists of employees who completed five years
of contractual service but whose service does not fall within the long-service
category above. They entered the field contemplated by Guideline (j), but
completion of five years alone does not justify a direction for automatic
regularisation.
116. Their entitlement is to a genuine, individual and time-bound
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 32 of 40

consideration under Guideline (j). That exercise must examine the manner of
entry, qualification, performance, length and continuity of service, nature of
the work, the relevant vacancy position from the point at which the employee
became eligible for consideration, and WAPCOS’s continued use of the
employee thereafter.
117. Since the failure to undertake that exercise is attributable to WAPCOS,
these employees should not be left without employment during the pendency
of the exercise. Those presently continuing will therefore remain on
contractual status until their cases are decided. Those whose engagements
have ceased will be restored prospectively on the same contractual footing for
that limited period. That protection does not confer regular status or create an
independent equity in favour of continuation if the Rule-based claim is
ultimately rejected.
C. Employees who did not complete five years
118. A Petitioner who had not completed five years by the stipulated expiry
of the contractual term which was in force when the impugned action was
taken cannot invoke the special route under Guideline (j). Service actually
rendered under the interim orders up to the original expiry of that term will
count; the interim orders did not themselves extend any contractual term.
119. If, on verification, Sangeet Sharma, Harsh Kumar Sharma or any other
Petitioner falls below that threshold, the claim under Guideline (j) must fail.
This does not prevent WAPCOS from extending any benefit under some other
valid statutory or policy framework. No independent enforceable right of that
nature has, however, been established in these petitions.
Directions
120. The petitions are accordingly disposed of in the following terms:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 33 of 40

th
(i) The Office Order No. 5/858/2025/HR dated 10 November, 2025 is
upheld as a prospective manpower measure. WAPCOS remains free to
rationalise, modernise and restructure its establishment in accordance with
law. The Office Order cannot, however, be applied to defeat claims which had
already entered the field of consideration under Guideline (j), or the relief
granted by this judgment.
th
(ii) The notices dated 30 January, 2026 are set aside to the extent they
purported to terminate subsisting contractual engagements before the expiry
of the terms already granted by WAPCOS.
(iii) The Petitioners shall stand classified in Categories A, B and C in
accordance with paragraphs 112, 115 and 118 above. WAPCOS may verify
the dates and periods of service from its records. For this purpose, service
actually rendered during the contractual tenure fixed by WAPCOS shall be
counted, including where premature termination of that tenure was prevented
by an interim order of this Court. The interim orders shall not, however, be
treated as extending the contractual tenure beyond its original expiry date.
(iv) The Petitioners falling in Category A shall be regularised. Before
issuing the order of regularisation, WAPCOS may verify only:
(a) the length and continuity of contractual service;
(b) whether the employee possessed the requisite qualification for the
corresponding or equivalent regular post under the R&P Rules applicable at
the relevant time;
(c) whether there is any material adverse service, disciplinary or vigilance
record which would render the employee legally ineligible or unsuitable for
regular appointment;
(d) whether the available contemporaneous official material shows that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 34 of 40

initial engagement was traceable to a mode recognised by Annexure V as
applicable at the relevant time, or to another public-facing selection process
involving an advertisement, Data Bank, Employment Exchange, careers
portal, walk-in process, interview, skill test or other comparable means of
selection;
(e) whether petitioner-specific contemporaneous material establishes that
the employee entered through private nomination, patronage, fraud,
misrepresentation, influence or another constitutionally impermissible or
clandestine route; and
(f) where the original recruitment file is no longer available, WAPCOS
may rely upon other contemporaneous official material concerning the
engagement, including appointment orders, advertisements, Data Bank
notices, panels, interview or skill-test records, extensions, pay-scale orders,
performance records and departmental correspondence. Mere non-availability
of the original recruitment file shall not, by itself, establish an illegal entry.
The exercise under this direction is one of limited verification and not a fresh
consideration of whether a Category A Petitioner ought to be regularised.
(v) Contractual entry shall not be treated as illegal merely because the
employee was not initially appointed against a sanctioned regular post or
through the recruitment process applicable to regular appointments. The
enquiry shall be whether the initial contractual engagement was traceable to
a mode recognised by Annexure V as applicable at the relevant time, or to
another public-facing selection process of the kind referred to in direction
(iv)(d) and whether the same was not constitutionally impermissible in the
sense explained above.
(vi) Category A Petitioner shall first be adjusted against an available
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 35 of 40

corresponding or equivalent regular vacancy. Such adjustment shall not
disturb the applicable reservation roster. If no appropriate vacancy is
available, WAPCOS shall create a personal supernumerary post for the
concerned employee, coterminous with their service. Such post shall remain
outside the regular vacancy pool, shall not alter the sanctioned cadre or
reservation roster, shall not affect the promotional or seniority rights of
regular employees, and shall lapse upon cessation of the concerned employee
from service.
(vii) A Category A Petitioner who is presently continuing shall continue
without interruption until the regularisation order is issued. A Category A
Petitioner whose engagement has ceased pursuant to the impugned policy or
notices, or by non-renewal in implementation thereof, shall be restored to the
same contractual status within a week and shall continue on that basis pending
completion of the verification under direction (iv). Upon successful
completion of such verification, the regularisation order shall be issued. Such
restoration shall operate prospectively and no back wages shall be payable for
any period during which no service was actually rendered.
(viii) If, upon verification under direction (iv), WAPCOS proposes to
exclude a Category A Petitioner from regularisation, it shall identify the
petitioner-specific material relied upon, furnish its substance to the concerned
employee and afford a reasonable opportunity to respond before passing a
brief reasoned order. Upon such order being passed, the continuation or
restoration directed under direction (vii) may be brought to an end in
accordance with law. The employee shall remain at liberty to challenge the
order in appropriate proceedings.
(ix) In the case of a Category A Petitioner presently continuing in service,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 36 of 40

regular pay and other prospective service benefits shall be admissible from
the date of this judgment. In the case of a Category A Petitioner restored to
contractual service pursuant to direction (viii), upon successful completion of
verification and issuance of the regularisation order, regular pay and other
service benefits shall be admissible from the date of such restoration. There
shall be no entitlement to arrears representing the difference between
contractual and regular pay for any period prior thereto.
(x) Consistent with the order of the Supreme Court in Government of NCT
of Delhi v. Pawan Sharma , regularisation or regular appointment pursuant to
this judgment shall not disturb the seniority of employees recruited through
the regular process. A Petitioner regularised or regularly appointed pursuant
to these directions shall rank below the employees already borne on the
relevant regular cadre on the effective date of their regularisation or regular
appointment.
(xi) The Petitioners falling in Category B shall be placed before the
Selection Committee contemplated by Guideline (j). The Committee shall
consider, petitioner-wise:
(a) the manner of initial entry;
(b) the qualification prescribed for the corresponding or equivalent regular
post;
(c) performance and service record;
(d) length and continuity of contractual service;
(e) the nature of the work performed;
(f) the extent to which WAPCOS continued to retain and deploy the
employee after that stage without undertaking the exercise contemplated by
Guideline (j); and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 37 of 40

(g) any other consideration expressly relevant under the applicable R&P
Rules.
(xii) The Selection Committee shall make a petitioner-specific
recommendation. The competent authority shall thereafter take the final
decision under Guideline (j) within two weeks of receiving the
recommendation. If a recommendation for regular appointment is not
accepted, the reasons shall be recorded with reference to the concerned
Petitioner and the requirements of Guideline (j). An employee shall not be
rendered ineligible merely because they crossed the ordinary age limit during
the period in which consideration under Guideline (j) was not undertaken; the
age relaxation contemplated by the provision shall be given due effect.
(xiii) A Category B Petitioner who is presently continuing shall continue on
the same contractual designation and pay structure, with the remuneration,
allowances and other benefits admissible immediately before this judgment,
together with any general revision applicable to similarly situated contractual
employees, until the exercise under direction (xi) is finally completed. Expiry
of the existing contractual term during that period shall not, by itself,
terminate this protection.
(xiv) A Category B Petitioner whose engagement ceased pursuant to the
th
Office Order dated 10 November, 2025, the impugned notices, or non-
renewal in implementation of that policy shall be re-engaged by WAPCOS
within two weeks on the contractual designation and terms applicable
immediately before cessation, with remuneration, allowances and benefits on
the same basis as similarly situated contractual employees. Such re-
engagement shall operate prospectively and shall not carry back wages for the
intervening period. The intervening break shall not be treated as a break for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 38 of 40

determining eligibility or length of service under Guideline (j). This direction
shall not apply where the engagement had independently come to an end on
account of resignation, misconduct, disqualification or any other cause
unrelated to the policy impugned in these petitions.
(xv) Where the competent authority decides to grant regular appointment to
a Category B Petitioner, the contractual engagement shall continue without
interruption until the regular appointment order is issued, which shall be done
within two weeks of that decision. If the claim is rejected by a reasoned
petitioner-specific order, the contractual engagement directed above may
thereafter be brought to an end in accordance with law. The Petitioner shall
remain at liberty to challenge such decision in appropriate proceedings.
(xvi) Until the exercise relating to Category B is completed, no
corresponding direct-recruitment vacancy against which a Category B
Petitioner is required to be considered shall be filled through fresh recruitment
in a manner which would defeat the consideration directed by this judgment.
(xvii) Where the final decision under Guideline (j) is favourable to a Category
B Petitioner and an appropriate corresponding or equivalent direct-
recruitment vacancy is presently available, WAPCOS shall appoint the
employee against that vacancy. If such a vacancy existed during the period
after the employee became eligible for consideration but was subsequently
surrendered or ceased to be available, the later restructuring shall not, by
itself, defeat the favourable decision. If no appropriate vacancy is then
available, WAPCOS shall create a personal supernumerary post for the
concerned employee in the manner specified in direction (vi).
(xviii) Regular appointment of a Category B Petitioner shall operate
prospectively from the date of the regular appointment order. No arrears
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 39 of 40

representing the difference between contractual and regular pay shall be
payable for any earlier period.
(xix) Petitioners falling in Category C, who had not completed five years of
contractual service by the relevant date identified in paragraph 118 above, are
not entitled to consideration under Guideline (j). Their claims for
regularisation on the basis of that provision are rejected. Their statutory dues
and any other remedy independently available in law remain unaffected.
(xx) A Petitioner who is shown from the service record not to have been a
contractual employee governed by the Annexure V framework, but to have
been engaged only as a daily-wage worker or under some other distinct
arrangement, shall not obtain the benefit of Guideline (j) merely on account
of length of service. Any independent claim available to such employee under
the legal regime governing that engagement is left open.
(xxi) The verification and regularisation exercise concerning Category A
shall be completed within six weeks from today. The consideration of
Category B shall be completed within three months. Delay on the part of
WAPCOS in completing either exercise shall not prejudice the continuation
or re-engagement directed above.
(xxii) All undisputed provident fund, gratuity and other statutory dues shall
be dealt with independently and within the period prescribed by the applicable
law.
121. The writ petitions and all pending applications are disposed of in the
above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026/ab
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:42:58
W.P.(C) 3843/2026 & other connected matters Page 40 of 40