Union Of India And Ors. vs Mithai Lal And Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 26 May 2026
Pronounced on: 8 September 2026
# CNR No: DLHC011805892018
+ W.P.(C) 7973/2018
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Adv.
versus
MITHAI LAL AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,
Adv.
# CNR No: DLHC011805842018
+ W.P.(C) 8018/2018
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC
with Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Ms.
Upanita Soumyadarshini, Advs.
versus
RAM BARAN AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
% JUDGMENT
08.09.2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 1 of 23
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. These writ petitions, at the instance of the Ministry of
1
Railways , assail judgment dated 7 November 2016 passed by the
2 3
Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 4140/2013 and OA
4
173/2014 . The respondents in these writ petitions were the applicants
in the OAs.
2. The respondents were working as bearers/vendors in the North
Eastern Railway on commission basis. They seek regularisation on the
said posts.
3. On 13 December 1976, the Railway Board issued the following
Circular to all General Managers in the Railways, with respect to
absorption of bearers/vendors who were employed with the Railways
on commission basis:
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(Railway Board)
No. 76-P/III/639/11 New Delhi, December 13, 1976
The General Managers
All Indian Railways
Sub: Bearers/Vendors/purely on commission basis.
In this connection attention is drawn to the D.O Letter No. 73-
TG/III/639/8 SG dated 16.2.74 from Director Traffic
(Commission) Railway Board to the CCS of all the Rlys.
(excepting Southern Rly.). In para 2 of the D.O. letter, it was
suggested that the cases of the Commission bearers and vendors
1
“Railways” hereinafter
2
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
3
Mithai Lal & Ors. v. Union of India
4
Ram Baran & Ors. v. Union of India
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 2 of 23
should be registered in order of length of their service for their
future absorption in various deptt. Catering units to afford them an
avenue for absorption in the permanent cadre. It was also
suggested in the said D.O. letter that if there are casual
labours/substitutes to be considered for regular. It is presumed that
the Southern Rlys. also have adopted the aforesaid procedure, if
not this may be adopted by them with immediate effect.
In view of frequent representations from Commission Bearers and
Commission Vendors for regularisation of their services on the
Railways. This ministry desires this action should be taken on the
lines indicated above to absorb progressively the Commission
Bearers and Vendors in regular vacancies.
Sd/- B.B. Srivastava
Jt. Director Traffic Comml.
G.I. Rly Board.”
4. The issue of regularisation of vendors and bearers working with
the Railways on commission basis was also raised before the Supreme
5
Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1568/1986 . The following orders,
passed by the Supreme Court, in the said writ petition, are of
relevance:
Order dated 20 April 1987
“ORDER
The process of regularisation which the respondents over to have
been taken over, should be completed within a period of four
months from today and the petitioners vendors will be absorbed in
accordance with the rules. After regularisation, they will be paid
similar salary to which they are entitled to. The Writ petition is
disposed of with these directions.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Order dated 26 July 1988
“ORDER
The petitioners allege that they are working as Commission
vendors their regularisation and absorption as contemplated by the
th
order of this Court on 20 April 1987. Such a scheme must be
5
Mahesh v. Union of India and others
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 3 of 23
taking into consideration the reality of the situation. The matter
th
will be listed on 25 August 1988. In the meantime, present
position will continue.”
Order dated 25 August 1987
“ORDER
Having considered the facts and the circumstances of this case and
in view of the averments on behalf of the respondents, we are of
the opinion that the respondents should implement the directions
th
given in the Memorandum dated 13 December, 1976 , which the
respondents state that they are trying to do as best as they can.
Directions.
Let the memorandum be implemented in accordance with the
directions contained thereunder.
The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.”
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Despite the above directions of the Supreme Court, no
substantial progress took place with respect to
absorption/regularisation of vendors and bearers working on
commission basis with the Railways. The matter was again taken up
6
before the Supreme Court in WP (C) 196/1995 , in which the Supreme
Court passed the following order on 3 December 1997:
“ORDER
nd
Despite directions given as far back as on 22 April, 1997, as to
when and by what time the Commission vendors and Commission
bearers working in the South Eastern Railway are likely to be
absorbed pursuant to the direction given earlier by this Court, no
such intimation could be given to this Court. An interim direction
was given by this Court that such workers would be paid ₹ 1,500/-
(Rs. Fifteen hundred) per month by way of interim relief because it
was reasonably expected at that time that the concerned workers
would : be absorbed without much delay. Our attention has been
drawn by Ms. Shyamla Pappu, the learned senior Counsel for the
Petitioner that in the case of similar workers in Southern railway,
6
South Eastern Railway Congress & Ors v. The Chairman, Railway Board
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 4 of 23
the Railway Board by the memo No. 88/T.G.III/648/19/PNH
Meeting, dated 10.2.1989 directed that such Commission vendors
until they would not be absorbed permanently would be paid at the
minimum of revised scale then in force and such interim relief
would also include and also the Dearness allowances. The learned
counsel has submitted that similar direction may be passed in
favour of the Commission vendors and Commission agents
represented by the petitioners.
In our view, in the facts of this case, there is justification in the said
submission. We, therefore, direct that till such Commission
vendors and Commission bearers of South Eastern Railway who
are now getting Rs.1,500/- per month, are not absorbed against the
available vacancies, they will be paid the minimum of the revised
scale of pay on the basis of Fifth Pay Commission's
recommendations together with Dearness allowances and other
allowances and also the House rent allowance which would have
been payable on permanent absorption but no increment should be
given to them until they are regularly absorbed against available
vacancies.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of.”
6. After the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the issue
of regularisation of commission vendors/bearers in the Railways again
cropped up before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA
1768/1999, which was disposed of, by the Tribunal, by the following
order dated 14 November 2000:
“In the present OA the applicants who were petitioners in Writ
Petition (c) No. 523/1997 filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
are seeking directions to the respondents to treat them as regular
Commission Vendors and Commission Bearers.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to
dispose of the OA by giving directions as given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Writ Petition (c) No. 196 of 1995 dated 3.12.97
filed by similarly placed persons. In view of this, we dispose of the
present OA with the directions to the respondents that till the
applicants are not absorbed against the available vacancies, they
will be paid the minimum of the revised scale of pay on the basis
of Fifth Pay Commission's recommendations together with DA and
other allowances and HRA which would have been payable on
permanent absorption but no increment should be given to them
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 5 of 23
until they are regularly absorbed against available vacancies. There
shall be no order as to costs.”
7. On 1 December 2005, the Railway Board issued a further
Circular, from which the following paragraphs are of some relevance:
“The absorption of Commission Vendors/Bearers was discussed in
the Board Meeting held on 16th November, 2005 and the Board
have taken the following decisions:-
(i) All Commission Vendors/Bearers should be
regularized with complete relaxation of educational
qualifications instead of ability to read and write. However,
nor more than 2 opportunities should be given to an
individual for such regularization. Such individuals who do
not avail the maximum permissible 2 opportunities should
be treated as not interested' and should be debarred.
(ii) All Commission. Vendors/Bearers should retire at
an age of 60 years.
(iii) In case of those Commission Vendors/Bearers who
are absorbed as Group 'D' staff on the Railways, direct
compassionate appointment to their widow/ward will be
permissible as per the extant rules in case of their death or
medical incapacitation before their retirement.
You are requested to absorb the Commission
Vendors/Bearers immediately on the above guidelines.
Action taken report on the above may kindly be furnished
at the earliest for approval of Board.”
8. The respondents again approached the Tribunal by way of OA
4140/2013 and OA 173/2014, seeking regularization, in which the
presently impugned judgment has been rendered by the Tribunal on 7
November 2016.
9. The Tribunal has allowed the OA in the following terms:
“14. The matter is simple. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 6 of 23
directed the respondents for regularisation of the applicants like
similarly placed persons. Vide their order of 1991, some benefits
were, in fact, granted by the respondents. However, despite the
scheme of 1976, no steps were taken for regularisation even after
the respondents themselves issued circular to that effect in 2005,
In. the interregnum, the Tribunal in O.A. No.1768/1999 and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No.196/1995 had directed the
respondents to grant pay at the minimum of the pay in the revised
pay scale of similar Group 'D' employees in the Railways along
with other allowances, such as, HRA, Dearness Allowance etc. The
respondents neither regularised the employees nor implemented the
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by granting them the minimum
of the pay scale and allowances.. The only ground taken by the
respondents is that there is delay and their M.A. was dismissed by
the Tribunal on this ground.
15. In my opinion, these are frivolous grounds in such a serious
matter because if the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions are not
implemented and the Railway Administration, after having issued
two circulars of 1976 and 2005, are not even ready to implement
their own circulars, the situation can only be described as shocking,
as it indicates that administration has completely collapsed. There
is no doubt that the applicants are very poor people and have spent
considerable amount of money running from pillar to post to get
their dues, as granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the
respondents' own policy.
16. Both the OAs are, therefore, allowed. The respondents are
directed to regularise the services of all the applicants in both the
OAs within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. They are also directed to pay the
minimum of the pay scale along with allowances, as stated above,
from the date of the order of this Tribunal, i.e. 14.11.2000.
Since the applicants had to spend a lot of money in
agitating these cases over the years, a cost of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees
one lakh only) is imposed on the respondents to be paid to the
applicants, within the above stipulated period.”
10. The Union of India moved the Tribunal by way of RA 45/2017,
seeking review of the judgment dated 7 November 2016. By order
dated 13 February 2017, the RA was dismissed on the ground that
there was no error apparent on the face of the record of the order dated
7 November 2016 and no other ground, meriting review of the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 7 of 23
decision, existed.
11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, the Union
of India has approached this Court by means of the present writ
petitions.
12. We have heard Mr. Mukul Singh, learned CGSC for the Union
of India in WP (C) 7973/2018 and Ms. Pratima N Lakra, learned
CGSC for the Union of India in WP (C) 8018/2018 as well as Mr.
Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents at length.
13. Learned Counsel have also filed written submissions.
14. Learned CGSCs for the Union of India submit that those
commission bearers/vendors who were eligible for regularisation in
terms of the Railway Board order dated 1 December 2005 have been
regularised. However, those who were screened and were not found
eligible could not be regularised, which include the respondents before
us, according to the learned CGSCs, cannot seek any right to
regularisation.
15. It is also submitted that several of the respondents have been
screened and regularised.
16. Responding to the submission of learned CGSC, Mr. Sinha,
learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that the issue of
entitlement of the respondents to regularisation stands settled up to the
Supreme Court and, therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the Union
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 8 of 23
of India to dispute their right in any way.
17. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the
matter from all its angle, we are of the view that the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal is unexceptionable, and calls for no
interference.
18. We deem it appropriate to state, at the outset, that it is a matter
of deep regret that low paid Group-D employees, working as bearers
and vendors, are having to litigate for decades in order to secure their
just entitlements, despite the directions issued by the Supreme Court
on more than one occasion.
19. The sequence of events outlined earlier in this judgment, and a
reading of the orders passed by the Supreme Court, leave no manner
of doubt that all commission bearers and vendors, who were in service
on the date when the Supreme Court passed its judgment in Mahesh
and South Eastern Railway Congress , were entitled to regularization
in terms of the Railway Board’s Circular dated 13 December 1976.
20. It is not disputed, before us, that all the respondents would fall
within this category. There is no question, therefore, of the Railways
having thereafter resorted to any process of screening so as to
eliminate some, or even any, of the respondents from regularization.
21. We also draw sustenance, for our view, from the recent
7
pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India ,
7
2024 SCC Online SC 3826
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 9 of 23
8 9
Shripal v. Nagar Nigam , Vinod Kumar v. Union of India , Dharam
10 11
Singh v. State of UP and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand which
have been followed by this Court in Pawan Sharma v. Govt. of NCT
12 13
of Delhi and New Delhi Municipal Council v. Kalpana Sharma as
well as the subsequent judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
speaking through Hon’ble the Chief Justice, in Om Prakash Gaur v.
14
Delhi Technological University , which follows the decision in
Pawan Sharma . The judgement of this Court in Pawan Sharma , we
may note, was upheld by the Supreme Court in appeal, vide order
dated 14 May 2026, with the sole clarification that the persons
concerned would not be entitled to seniority over others who may
have been regularly appointed in the interregnum.
22. We may reproduce, from the decisions in Pawan Sharma ,
Kalpana Sharma and Om Prakash Gaur , the relevant paragraphs,
thus:
From Pawan Sharma
“15. To our mind, the present petitions stand covered on facts by
the decision in Vinod Kumar , Jaggo , Shripal and Dharam Singh .
We have already set out the propositions emerging from the said
decisions, and do not deem it necessary to repeat them in extenso .
However, some principles, which are dispositive of the petitions
before us, may be enumerated:
(i) If
(a) the employees are selected by a process
which mirrors regular recruitment, by holding
selections and interviews,
8
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221
9
(2024) 9 SCC 327
10
2025 SCC OnLIne SC 1735
11
2026 SCC OnLIne SC 129
12
2025 SCC OnLIne Del 8313
13
MANU/DE/2899/2026
14
2026 SCC OnLine Del 6224
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 10 of 23
(b) they have worked continuously for several
years, and
(c) they are performing duties essential for the
establishment or organization,
they are entitled to regularization.
(ii) The right to regularization, thus earned, is
substantive in nature.
(iii) In such cases, the initial label under which they
were recruited, whether part-time, or contractual, or casual,
or ad hoc , or temporary, would not matter.
(iv) However, the appointment must not be illegal, mala
fide , surreptitious, or “back door”.
(v) In such circumstances, it is not open to the
respondents to contend that the posts occupied by the
employees were not regular posts. The recurrent nature of
the duties performed by the employees necessitated the
classification of the posts as regular, irrespective the
original label under which the employees may have been
appointed. The initial temporary, ad hoc, contractual, or
casual, nature of their employment stood transformed, in
such cases, “into a scenario demanding fair regularization”.
(vi) The right to regularization would enure, in such
cases, even if the posts against which the employees were
appointed were not sanctioned posts – though, in the
present case, the posts against which the petitioners were
appointed were sanctioned.
16. In the present cases, the petitioners were employed, albeit
on contract basis, pursuant to advertisement. A regular selection
process, therefore, took place, qualifications were prescribed, and
the petitioners fulfilled the qualifications. The appointments were
against sanctioned posts. The nature of duties rendered by the
petitioners, being nursing and para-medical duties, were, by their
very nature, essential and perennial. They could not, therefore, be
regarded as dispensable. The service rendered by the petitioners is
blemish free. There is no complaint against them at any point of
time. They have continued rendering uninterrupted service for
close to 20 years. The very fact they have been extended
periodically from time to time against sanctioned posts indicates
that there is continued need of their services. Their case, therefore,
in fact, stands on a much better footing than the cases of the
employees/workmen which were before the Supreme Court in
Vinod Kumar , Jaggo , Shripal and Dharam Singh , as the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 11 of 23
petitioners were duly qualified, appointed against sanctioned posts
and appointed consequent to a regular recruitment process.
17. These factors, by themselves, entitle the petitioners to be
regularized in the posts against which they were originally
appointed. This is the unmistakable consequence of the decisions
in Vinod Kumar , Jaggo , Shripal and Dharam Singh .
18. Article 141 of the Constitution of India makes the
judgments in Vinod Kumar , Jaggo , Shripal and Dharam Singh
binding on us. Article 144 requires us to act in the aid of the law
declared by the Supreme Court, which would include making all
efforts to ensure that the law declared by the Supreme Court is
implemented with full vigor. We cannot, therefore, craft an
exception into the law declared in Vinod Kumar , Jaggo , Shripal
and Dharam Singh in cases where regular recruitment exercises
were undertaken. Where petitioners had, by dint of their original
appointment and continuous uninterrupted blemish free service on
the post in which they were appointed, earned a right to
regularization, they could not be compelled to participate in any
recruitment exercise. Expressed otherwise, the omission on the
part of the petitioners to participate in the regular recruitment
exercises undertaken by the respondents cannot derogate from their
right to regularization flowing from the facts of their cases and the
law declared in Vinod Kumar , Jaggo , Shripal and Dharam Singh .
19. Any attempt at distinguishing the facts of the present case
from those which stand covered by the judgments in Vinod
Kumar , Jaggo , Shripal and Dharam Singh , to our mind, would be
no less than an affront to the said judgments. We, as a Court lower
in the judicial hierarchy, are least inclined to pursue this perilous
course. The legal position in this regard stands tellingly
underscored in the recent decision of the Supreme Court, rendered
just three days ago, in Rohan Vijay Nahar v State of
15
Maharashtra , from which the following paragraphs merit
reproduction:
“1. The judiciary draws its strength from discipline and
not dominion. The Constitution of India creates courts of
record that are independent in their spheres and yet binds
them together through a coherent hierarchy. The High
Courts in India possess a wide jurisdiction, but the Supreme
Court of India remains the final interpreter of law. Article
141 of the Constitution of India1 declares that the law laid
down by this Court binds every court in the country.
Further, Article 144 of the Constitution obliges all
15
(2026) 2 SCC 182
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 12 of 23
authorities, civil and judicial, to act in aid of this Court.
These are not ceremonial recitals. They are the structural
guarantees that convert dispersed adjudication into a
single system that speaks with one voice and commands
public confidence.
2. Judicial discipline is the ethic that turns hierarchy
into harmony. It requires courtesy, restraint, and obedience
to binding precedent even where a judge is personally
unpersuaded. The lawful course is to apply the precedent
and, if needed, record reasons for inviting a larger Bench
to reconsider it. The unlawful and unjust course is to
distinguish in name while disregarding in substance or to
recast issues in order to sidestep a rule that binds. “Stare
decisis et non quieta movere” which means to stand by
decisions and not to disturb settled matters, is not a slogan
but a safeguard of equality before the law . Judges do not sit
to settle scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason and
not a weapon of reprisal. A vindictive stance is
incompatible with the oath to uphold the Constitution and
the law.
3. Judges across our country must remember that
collegiality is the companion virtue of independence and
that a reversal on appeal is not a personal affront but the
ordinary operation of a constitutional hierarchy that corrects
error and settles law. Respect for the senior jurisdiction is
not subservience. It is an acknowledgment that all courts
pursue a common enterprise to do justice according to law .
An Appellate Court reviews and, where necessary, sets
right the decision of the lower court with restraint and
measured language, and the courts below reciprocate
through prompt, reasoned, and transparent compliance.
Courts speak through reasons, and reasons that align with
binding authority preserve both legality and legitimacy of
the judiciary. Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution make
obedience a constitutional duty and not a matter of
personal preference. A judgment that attempts to resist
binding authority undermines the unity of law, burdens
litigants with avoidable expense and delay, and invites the
perception that outcomes depend on the identity of the
judge. In a constitutional judiciary, it is the law, as
declared, that brings the conversation to a close. We restate
the simple duty of Courts: apply precedent as it stands and
give effect to appellate directions as they are framed. In
that discipline lies the confidence of litigants and the
credibility of courts.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 13 of 23
We draw sustenance from these passages.
20. In the light of the law that has now been declared in Vinod
Kumar , Jaggo , Shripal and Dharam Singh , it is clear that the
judgment of the Tribunal cannot be upheld.”
(Emphasis supplied)
From Kalpana Sharma
“19. From the decisions in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and
Dharam Singh , the position which emerges is that a right to
regularization arises ipso facto in favour of the employees who
were initially employed after open selection against sanctioned
vacancies and continued on the posts for long periods of time.
These three facts i.e., (i) appointment by open selection, (ii)
appointment against sanctioned vacancies, and (iii) long and
continued discharge of duties on the posts to which they were
appointed, by themselves entitled them to regularization. In fact, in
Jaggo , the Supreme Court even went to the extent of holding that it
was not open to the respondents to contend that the appointments
were not made against sanctioned vacancies.
20. The only other additional consideration which emerges
from the later decisions on the issue is the duties discharged by the
employees concerned. If the appointment is against posts which are
transient in nature, the entitlement to regularization would be of a
somewhat lower degree. If, however, the employees discharge
duties which are basic and essential to the functioning of the
organization, their right to regularization stands sanctified.
21. In such circumstances, there can be no question of the
employees being required to await framing of RRs or any other
such eventualities in order to be regularized. Their right to
regularization flows as a consequence of long and unblemished
service of the establishment consequent on appointment by open
selection against sanctioned vacancies, for work which is essential
to the functioning of the organization. It is not open to the
establishment after extracting work from such persons for
protracted periods of time to contest their claim to regularization
on the ground that RRs were to be framed or that RRs which had
been framed after the appointment of the respondents, did not
qualify them for regularization.
22. We are not inclined to agree with Ms. Dave's contention
that we should await the outcome of the correspondences between
the NDMC and the UPSC. In para 4(v) of the writ petition, the
NDMC has specifically averred that the UPSC rejected the
proposal for regularization mooted by the NDMC consequent on an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 14 of 23
earlier decision of the Tribunal rendered in OA 3597/2017 on the
ground that the appointment of the employees was not in
accordance with the RRs and that, therefore, their services could
not be regularized merely because they had been serving the
Establishment for a long period of time. Reliance was placed by
the UPSC for this opinion, on the judgment of the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi . The view adopted by
the UPSC is in the teeth of the law declared in Jaggo and the
decisions which followed it and reiterated the same position. Uma
Devi has been considered in all these decisions and the Supreme
Court has consistently held that Uma Devi , which was intended to
be a beneficial decision, aimed at curbing back door appointment,
has been weaponized and used as a tool to continue persons on
contractual and ad hoc basis for years at a stretch without
regularizing their services. Such a practice not only amounts to
unfair labour practice but also violates Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. As the UPSC has, in a similar case, refused
to recommend regularization of the employees concerned, we are
of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by awaiting
the reply of the UPSC even if NDMC has been communicating
with the UPSC in that regard.
23. Besides, once the right of the respondents to regularization
stands crystalized by, as on date, seven judgments of the Supreme
Court, all of which are consistent with each other, it would be a
travesty of justice and grossly unfair to the respondents to allow
their cases to continue to remain in suspended animation.
24. It is true that in some earlier orders, we had issued notice
without disposing of the matters, keeping in mind the fact that
against earlier decisions passed by us, appeals had been preferred
before the Supreme Court which had issued notice thereon and, in
some cases, directed, as an interim measure, that the employees
before it in those cases be not removed from the posts which were
held by them. In view of the fact that the issue was sub judice
before the Supreme Court in some cases, we had refrained from
passing any final decisions in the writ petitions before us.
25. Ms. Dave predictably draws our attention to this fact.
26. After that, however, the same position had been reiterated
by the Supreme Court twice, firstly, in Bhola Nath and thereafter
in Pawan Kumar , rendered by two different Division Benches of
the Supreme Court. Pawan Sharma expressly reproduces and
relies on Jaggo .
27. Once the Supreme Court has made its view thus clear, we,
as a Court hierarchically lower on the judicial ladder, are bound to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 15 of 23
decide the lis before us in terms of the law declared by the
Supreme Court.
28. Besides in view of the decisions in Jaggo, Shripal,
Dharam Singh, Bhola Nath, Vinod Kumar and Pawan Kumar
and the judgment of this Court in Pawan Sharma , we find no error
whatsoever in the view adopted by the Tribunal.
29. However, we clarify that the respondents would be entitled
to exactly the same benefits which were granted to the petitioners
in Pawan Sharma, i.e., to be regularised prospectively with
however, the benefit of fixation of pay, seniority and continuity of
service from the date of initial appointment but without any back
wages.”
From Om Prakash Gaur
“24. A Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Sharma (supra),
referring to Jaggo (supra), Shripal (supra) and Dharam
Singh (supra) has held that in the said case since the employees
were selected by a process which mirrors regular recruitment and
they had worked continuously for several years and have been
performing duties essential for the establishment or organisation,
hence they were entitled to be regularised. It is to be noticed that
in Pawan Sharma (supra) as well the advertisement pursuant to
which the employees were initially engaged was for a walk-in
interview only, as is the case with the employees in these two
appeals. Para 15 of the report in Pawan Sharma (supra) is
extracted herein below:
“15. To our mind, the present petitions stand covered on
facts by the decision in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and
Dharam Singh. We have already set out the propositions
emerging from the said decisions, and do not deem it
necessary to repeat them in extenso. However, some
principles, which are dispositive of the petitions before us,
may be enumerated:
(i) If
(a) the employees are selected by a process
which mirrors regular recruitment, by
holding selections and interviews ,
(b) they have worked continuously for
several years, and
(c) they are performing duties essential for
the establishment or organization, they are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 16 of 23
entitled to regularization.
(ii) The right to regularization, thus earned, is
substantive in nature.
(iii) In such cases, the initial label under which
they were recruited, whether part-time, or
contractual, or casual, or ad hoc, or temporary,
would not matter.
(iv) However, the appointment must not be
illegal, mala fide, surreptitious, or “back door”.
(v) In such circumstances, it is not open to the
respondents to contend that the posts occupied by
the employees were not regular posts. The recurrent
nature of the duties performed by the employees
necessitated the classification of the posts as
regular, irrespective the original label under which
the employees may have been appointed. The initial
temporary, ad hoc, contractual, or casual, nature of
their employment stood transformed, in such cases,
“into a scenario demanding fair regularization”.
(vi) The right to regularization would enure, in
such cases, even if the posts against which the
employees were appointed were not sanctioned
posts - though, in the present case, the posts against
which the petitioners were appointed were
sanctioned.”
25. The Division Bench in Pawan Sharma (supra), has also
held that the right of regularisation in such cases would accrue
even if the posts against which the employees were initially
appointed were not sanctioned posts. The final direction issued
in Pawan Sharma (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court is
as under:
“22. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to be
regularized against the posts on which they were originally
appointed, irrespective of the labels governing such
appointment. They would be entitled to fixation of pay
treating them as having been regularly appointed ab initio.
They shall also be entitled to all other benefits which would
follow, except for back wages.”
26. In view of the detailed discussion of the entire law
regarding entitlement of regularisation of a contractual/ad-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 17 of 23
hoc/temporary employee made by the coordinate Bench of this
Court in Pawan Sharma (supra), we are of the opinion that having
regard to the facts of the instant case as well, the employees are
entitled to be considered for regularisation of their services. Their
long continuance of service with the University clearly indicates
that ever since their initial appointment they have been performing
functions and duties, the requirement of which is perennial and
accordingly, they are entitled to be regularised in service.
27. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pawan
Sharma ( supra ), was challenged in Civil Appeal No. 7837/2026 ,
which had arisen out of SLP(C) No. 17550/2026. The said Civil
Appeal, vide order dated 14-5-2026 passed by the Supreme Court,
has been disposed of, maintaining the order of this Court with a
clarification that the employees to be regularised pursuant to the
order of this Court shall be placed below those employees who
were regularly appointed candidates in the order of seniority. The
directions issued for regularising the services of the employees
in Pawan Sharma (supra) were, thus, maintained by the Supreme
Court.”
23. The order of the Supreme Court in Pawan Sharma read thus:
“1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Though we are not inclined to interfere with the direction
issued by the High Court to regularize the writ petitioners (the
respondents herein) on the posts they were originally appointed, we
deem it appropriate to clarify the direction contained in paragraph
22 of the impugned order so that the seniority of all those regularly
appointed in between the date of initial appointment of the
respondents and the date of judgment is not disturbed.
5. Accordingly, we clarify that the direction contained in
paragraph 22 of the impugned order shall not affect the inter se
seniority of all those who were regularly appointed between the
date of initial appointment of the respondents and the date of the
judgment of the High Court. In effect, the respondents shall be
placed below those regularly appointed candidates in the order of
seniority.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 18 of 23
6. With the aforesaid clarification/ modification of the
impugned order, this appeal is disposed of.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
24. Though the decisions from Jaggo onwards have been rendered
much after the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Mahesh and
South Eastern Railway Congress , they lend additional weight to the
right of the respondents to regularization.
25. The Railways have, with their rejoinder, stated, with respect to
the respondents in WP(C) 7973/2018, as under:
“It is submitted here that the position of respondents is as follows:
i. Late Mithai Lal S/o Bhagwati
Not regularised due to being unsuccessful in the
screening process at that time and retired as
commission vendor in the year 2013. Further it is
submitted that Late Mithai Lal was retired on
31.10.2013 as commission vendor and he has never
challenged his retirement as commission vendor.
ii. Sri Rajan
Not regularised as he was not screened.
iii. Sri Manik Chand S/o Shyamlal
He was found to be unsuitable in the screening
process and therefore, he was not absorbed.
iv. Sri Sohanlal S/o Shyamlal
He was found to be unsuitable in the screening
process and therefore, he was not absorbed.”
26. With respect to the respondents in WP(C) 8018/2018, the
following table has been annexed to the rejoinder of the petitioner:
SR. No. Name Date of
Appointment Remarks
Birth
01 Ram Baran 11.01.62 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 21.06.2005 and died
Sr. No. 14 in OA
No. 1768/1999
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 19 of 23
on 11.07.2021
02 Ramakant 10.07.51 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 19.09.2003
Sr. No. 37 in OA
No. 1768/1999
03 Manoj Kumar
Chauhan
12.12.66 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 15.01.2004
Work as a Porter
in commercial
Dept..
04 Jagan Nath 04.07.52 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 19.09.2003
Sr. No. 12 in OA
No. 1768/1999
05 Vijay Prakash 15.07.61 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 15.01.2004
Sr. No. 25 in OA
No. 1768/1999
06 Ram Kalap 10.01.54 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 30.01.2004
Sr. No. 08 in OA
No. 1768/1999
07 Ram Lakhan 07.02.52 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 19.09.2003
Sr. No. 15 in OA
No. 1768/1999
08 Mohan Lal 15.11.53 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 06.01.2004
Sr. No. 45 in OA
No. 1768/1999
09 Rattan Lal 07.10.66 As found unsuitable
and left
Sr. No. 11 in OA
No. 1768/1999
10 Chottey Singh 05.08.60 Absorbed in group 'D'
-
on 15.01.2004
11 Ram Prasad 08.11.58 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 16.07.2004
Sr. No. 57 in OA
No. 1768/1999
12 Raju Prasad 15.07.62 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 30.01.2004
Sr. No. 28 in OA
No. 1768/1999
13 Dinesh Kumar 11.12.62 As found unsuitable
and left
Sr. No. 44 in OA
No. 1768/1999
14 Nathai 07.07.63 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 15.01.2004.
working as house
keeping assistant in
commercial dept.
Sr. No. 39 in OA
No. 1768/1999
15 Radhey Shyam 20.06.57 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 30.01.2004
Sr. No. 10 in OA
No. 1768/1999
16 Gurucharan 01.06.53 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 19.09.2003
Sr. No. 02 in OA
No. 1768/1999
17 Girdhari Lal 14.07.42 Retired -
18 Radhey Shyam
Died on 14.06.2011 Smt Indrawati devi
w/o late Radhey
Shyam, filed Oa
85/2012 Indrawati
Devi vs UOI and
also his son
Pramod Kumar has
filed OA no.
1645/2012 on
account of CGA
which is pending
before Hon'ble
CAT / ALD
19 Chotey Lal 11.06.37 Retired -
20 Ram Chander 21.10.40 Retired Sr. No. 24 in OA
No. 1768/1999
21 Ramanand 10.11.49 Sr. No. 07 in OA
-
No. 1768/1999
22 Ram Chandra 03.04.32 Retired -
23 Ram Das
(Deceased)
-
10.04.45 Through its wife Smt.
Vindhyavasni Ram Das
Sr. No. 38 in OA
No. 1768/1999
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 20 of 23
absorbed on 06.01.2004
& has retired.
24 Jeetlal 08.07.46 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 06.01.2004
Sr. No. 43 in OA
No. 1768/1999
25 Rangi Lal 05.11.45 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 06.01.2004
Sr. No. 52 in OA
No. 1768/1999
26 Rajesh NO such person in the record. -
27 Chunni Lal 01.10.50 Absorbed in group 'D'
on 06.01.2004
Sr. No. 31 in OA
No. 1768/1999
28 Rajan Pd. No such person has approached with
the respondents.
Sr. No. 29 only
Rajan has been
mention and father
name is also not
mention in OA
No.. 1768/99
29 Kishori Lal 01.08.46 Absorbed in group 'D' on
06.01.2004
-
27. The aforesaid table also formed part of para 1 of the preliminary
objections in the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India in OA
173/2014.
28. The respondents in WP (C) 8018/2013 disputed the correctness
of the assertions, in the afore-extracted table, that several of the
respondents had been regularised in Group-D posts. This Court,
thereupon, passed the following order on 15 September 2022:
“1. Petitioners are directed to file an affidavit indicating the
benefits that are being paid to a regular employee and the benefits
that are being paid to each of the Respondents. They shall also
indicate the retiral benefits to be paid to a regular employee and
retiral benefits, if any, that are being paid to the Respondents, who
have retired and the legal heirs of the Respondents, who have
expired.
2. Let an affidavit be filed within four weeks.
3. Renotify on 22.03.2023.”
29. Significantly, no such affidavit, as directed by the order dated
15 September 2012, vouchsafing the assertion, in the afore extracted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 21 of 23
table that several of the respondents in WP (C) 8018/2013 had been
absorbed in Group-D posts, has been filed by the Union of India.
Rather, somewhat disturbingly, the Union of India filed an additional
affidavit dated 12 January 2023, paras 3 and 4 of which read thus:
“3. That it is submitted that the Respondents in the present
petition were Commission Vendors and they were working on
commission basis as fixed at the time of selling of goods / items
and therefore there is no policy to provide any retirement benefits
on superannuation/ death to such Commission Vendors. Hence, no
retirement benefits are being paid to that Respondents who were
not regularized during their service period.
4. That the Respondents who had not been regularized as per
rule, they were not entitled for any benefits as provided to other
regular employees.”
30. Apparently, therefore, the Railways have been unable to
substantiate the assertion, in the afore-extracted table, which was filed
both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, that several of
the respondents had been absorbed as Group-D employees. To say the
least, this is very disturbing. One would expect the Railways to
display candour both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court.
We, therefore, are inclined to believe the respondents in their
assertions that none of the respondents in either of these writ petitions
have been regularised, despite repeated orders passed by judicial fora
up to the Supreme Court.
31. In that view of the matter, we find no case, whatsoever, to
interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
32. Insofar as the costs imposed by the Tribunal are concerned, we
are of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred, if at all, on the side of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 22 of 23
leniency. It is time that Courts protected the interests of the weaker
sections of the society and persons drawing paltry wages, so as to
ensure that the socialist structure of our democracy – which is a
preambular goal – remains intact. We would have been inclined, in
fact, to enhance the costs awarded by the Tribunal but, somewhat
hesitatingly, refrain from doing so.
33. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
34. Let compliance with the order of the Tribunal, including the
direction for payment of costs, be ensured within a period of four
weeks from today.
35. We have been told that contempt proceedings had been initiated
before the Tribunal, which have been kept on hold pending disposal of
these writ petitions.
36. In the event that there is failure to comply with the aforesaid
directions, we direct the Tribunal to revive the contempt proceedings
and take them to their logical conclusion.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2026/ dsn/ AR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
14:47:39
W.P.(C) 7973/2018 and WP(C) 8018/2018 Page 23 of 23