Authorities must positively decide contractual nursing staff’s regularization claims within four months.

The applicants in both Original Applications were contractual Nursing Officers and other nursing/paramedical staff engaged in hospitals under the Government of NCT of Delhi.

They claimed to have worked against sanctioned posts for a prolonged period, including approximately 18 years in the case of certain applicants.

They sought regularization from the date of their initial engagement, consequential pay and service benefits, and either quashing of the recruitment advertisement dated 12 January 2024 or preservation of sufficient posts for their absorption.

The applicants relied upon the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Pawan Sharma & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 2117/2025, which directed regularization of similarly placed employees against the posts to which they were originally appointed, with consequential benefits but without back wages.

The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 7837/2026, upheld the direction to regularize, while clarifying that the applicants would be placed below persons regularly appointed between their initial appointment and the date of the High Court’s judgment.

The respondents informed the Tribunal that the regularization process was under active consideration.

The Tribunal also noted the Delhi High Court’s order dated 29 July 2026 in Sonia Gandhi & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Contempt Case (C) No. 980/2016, recording the respondents’ statement that the regularization process would likely be completed within four months.

Whether the applicants’ claims for regularization as Nursing Officers and paramedical staff were required to be considered in light of the decisions in Pawan Sharma and the Supreme Court’s modifying clarification.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicants’ claims for regularization within a specified time frame.

Whether the applicants were entitled, at this stage, to direct regularization, retrospective service benefits, or relief against the recruitment advertisement dated 12 January 2024.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing applications to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It applied the principle stated by the Delhi High Court in Pawan Sharma & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 2117/2025, that eligible contractual employees may be regularized against the posts to which they were originally appointed, with pay fixation and consequential service benefits, but without back wages.

The Supreme Court’s order dated 14 May 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 7837/2026 clarified that such regularization would not disturb the inter se seniority of persons regularly appointed during the intervening period; the regularized employees would be placed below those regularly appointed candidates in seniority.

The Tribunal also relied on the respondents’ undertaking, recorded by the Delhi High Court in Sonia Gandhi, that the regularization process would be completed within four months.

The Tribunal found that the issues in both O.A.s were identical and that the parties agreed they could be disposed of by a common order.

Since the applicants’ claims concerned the same regularization process addressed in Pawan Sharma, and the respondents acknowledged that the matter was under active departmental consideration in light of that judgment as modified by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal considered it appropriate not to adjudicate finally on the applicants’ individual entitlement at that stage.

Instead, it directed the respondents to examine the applicants’ claims consistently with the governing judicial decisions.

Any regularization would therefore remain subject to the principles recognized in Pawan Sharma and the Supreme Court’s clarification concerning seniority.

The Tribunal fixed the period of four months from 29 July 2026, corresponding to the time-frame already recorded by the Delhi High Court in the contempt proceedings.

The order did not itself grant immediate regularization, retrospective wages, or any direct relief against the recruitment advertisement; those matters were left for consideration by the respondents in accordance with the applicable judgments and the Supreme Court’s seniority clarification.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.