01Facts
The respondents, comprising Allopathic Pharmacists and Auxiliary Nurse Midwifes (ANMs), were recruited by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) through an open selection process following public advertisements.
¶ 6, 10They were appointed against sanctioned vacancies on a contract basis for six months, which were continuously renewed for several years (some since 2008).
¶ 6-8, 10Although they performed duties identical to regular employees and met all qualifications, their services were never regularized.
¶ 8, 11The respondents filed Original Applications (OAs) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization and pay parity. On November 25, 2025, the CAT directed their regularization by following the Delhi High Court’s precedent in Pawan Sharma v. GNCTD.
¶ 1, 13The NDMC challenged these orders via the present writ petitions, arguing that the Recruitment Rules (RRs) did not envisage regularization and that they were awaiting a decision from the UPSC.
¶ 12, 1602Issues
i.1. Whether contractual employees appointed through a regular selection process against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization after prolonged, continuous service.
¶ 1, 13, 19ii.2. Whether the absence of specific provisions in Recruitment Rules or pending administrative correspondence with the UPSC can validly bar the regularization of long-serving employees.
¶ 21, 2203Law Applied
The "essence of employment" and long-term service warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status based on principles of equity and fairness in public employment.
¶ 3.2, 3.3The ruling in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi should not be weaponized to deny regularization to "regularly" selected "irregular" (as opposed to "illegal") appointees who have served for over ten years in sanctioned posts.
¶ 4.2, 4.3The State cannot use "financial constraints" or "no vacancy" as a talisman to override the constitutional obligations of a model employer under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
¶ 6.10, 6.12Provisions in the judgment · 2
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 6ESection 6N
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the respondents were not "backdoor entries" but were selected via a transparent, open recruitment process against sanctioned vacancies.
¶ 19Applying the "essence of employment" test, the Court found their duties were indistinguishable from those of permanent employees and essential to the functioning of the NDMC.
¶ 19, 20The Court rejected the NDMC’s contention regarding the need to wait for UPSC approval or new RRs, stating that once a right to regularization crystallizes through consistent Supreme Court precedents, it cannot remain in "suspended animation".
¶ 21, 23The bench noted that the UPSC's refusal to recommend regularization based on a strict reading of Uma Devi was legally untenable, as recent jurisprudence clarifies that long-term extraction of regular labor under temporary labels constitutes an unfair labor practice.
¶ 22, 26Structural changes or administrative drift cannot extinguish accrued claims to regularization for perennial work.
¶ 6.1205Holding
The Court dismissed the NDMC’s writ petitions and upheld the Tribunal’s order for regularization.
¶ 31The Court held that the respondents are entitled to prospective regularization with the benefit of pay fixation, seniority, and continuity of service from their initial dates of appointment.
¶ 29The Court clarified that no back wages would be granted.
¶ 29The NDMC was directed to implement the judgment within 12 weeks.
¶ 32Original Court PDF
New Delhi Municipal Council Through Its Chairman & Anr.vsKalpana Sharma & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
