Contractual Employees' Services Not to Be Dispensed Pending Supreme Court Regularization Decisions.

The applicants, Junior Engineers (Civil) engaged on a contractual basis, sought regularization of their services and pay parity.

They were appointed after open market advertisements and due selection, against sanctioned and vacant regular posts.

They have served continuously since 2006, 2008, and 2010, with some having nearly two decades of service, performing perennial duties against regular posts.

Although a resolution for regularization was adopted in 2014, and 322 sanctioned posts remained vacant in 2017-2018, the applicants were not regularized.

The respondents argued that the engagements were stop-gap arrangements until regular selection by DSSSB, and that applicants accepted these terms with mandatory one-day breaks.

Regular recruitment processes were conducted by DSSSB in 2009, 2018, 2012, 2013, 2019, and 2021.

The applicants did not participate in these regular recruitment processes, or if they did, they were unsuccessful.

The respondents also highlighted that the Supreme Court has stayed similar reliefs granted by High Courts in MCD v. Manish Kumar & Ors. (Order dated 14.02.2025) and MCD v. Suresh Chand Sharma (Order dated 08.08.2025).

Whether the contractual Junior Engineers are entitled to regularization/absorption and pay parity with regular Junior Engineers, along with all consequential service benefits, despite their initial engagement being contractual and their non-selection through the standard recruitment process?

Whether the non-participation or unsuccessful participation of applicants in direct recruitment processes by DSSSB bars their claim for regularization?

The Tribunal considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, which distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments, holding that regularization cannot be granted in violation of constitutional schemes for public employment but may be considered for irregular appointments in duly sanctioned posts with long continuous service as a one-time measure.

It also drew upon subsequent judgments such as Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, Shripal Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 99, which deprecated long-term ad-hocism and emphasized that procedural formalities cannot perpetually deny substantive rights accrued through continuous service.

Pertinently, Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 156, specifically reiterated the intent of Uma Devi to prevent backdoor entries, but noted its misinterpretation when used to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees if appointments were irregular, not illegal, and the work was perennial.

The Tribunal also acknowledged judicial precedents from the High Court of Delhi, such as Pawan Sharma v. GNCTD, W.P.(C) 2117/2025, which granted regularization with pay fixation from the initial appointment date, and Namita Khare & Anr. v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) 8531/2022, holding that participation in selection does not foreclose regularization claims.

The Tribunal recognized that the applicants' appointments, though termed contractual, were not illegal but irregular, having been made through open advertisement against sanctioned and vacant posts.

Their continuous service for nearly two decades, performing duties of a perennial nature, distinguished their case from typical backdoor entries that Uma Devi sought to prevent.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' conscious decision to continue the applicants' engagement, despite explicit Supreme Court pronouncements, implied a recognized need for their services that went beyond a mere "stop-gap" arrangement.

While acknowledging the respondents' argument that regularization would violate Articles 14 and 16, and deprive meritorious candidates, the Tribunal highlighted that the applicants' continued employment, specifically because of interim court orders, should not prejudice them.

The recent Supreme Court judgment in Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. solidified the view that Uma Devi should not be misapplied to deny legitimate regularization claims for employees with long, unblemished, and indispensable service, particularly when their appointments were irregular rather than illegal.

Given the current stay orders by the Supreme Court on similar reliefs, the Tribunal chose to reserve the final decision on regularization and pay parity, linking it to the outcomes of these pending Supreme Court cases.

The Tribunal held that the services of the applicants shall not be terminated until a final decision is rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MCD v. Manish Kumar & Ors. (SLP (C) Diary No. 3221/2025, Order dated 14.02.2025) and MCD v. Suresh Chand Sharma (SLP (C) No. 20317/2025, Order dated 08.08.2025).

The claim for regularization shall be considered and granted on similar terms or as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions.