### Mere Engagement against Sanctioned Posts does not Mature into Regulatory Rights Absent Official Recruitment Frameworks

The Petitioners were engaged as Superintendents (Hospital Managers) on a contractual basis in 2019 by the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) through public advertisement

Their contracts were extended periodically, with the Respondents contending the final extension ended on June 30, 2022

The Petitioners alleged they continued working beyond this date—some until February 14, 2023—without receiving wages

They filed Original Applications (O.A.s) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization and challenging their replacement via outsourcing

The CAT dismissed the O.A.s on April 13, 2023

During High Court proceedings, the Respondents filed an affidavit stating that the post of Hospital Manager is no longer required and no fresh personnel would be outsourced

1. Whether the Petitioners have a legal right to regularization or permanent absorption in service despite the contractual nature of their appointments

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to wages/remuneration for the period worked beyond the formal expiry of their contracts on June 30, 2022

The court applied principles governing public employment, specifically that the nature and terms of appointment remain determinative; a contractual engagement, even if made against a sanctioned post via public process, does not automatically mature into a right to regularization

The court further relied on the principle that the creation of a regular cadre requires a formal "codal process" and recruitment structure

Regarding wage claims, the court applied the equitable principle that if work is actually performed, remuneration cannot be denied solely due to the absence of a formal extension order

The Court observed that since the Respondents declared the post of Hospital Manager redundant and committed to not using outsourced labor, the prayers for continuance and protection against outsourcing were moot

Regarding regularization, the Court reasoned that in the absence of a foundational framework for a regular cadre, no direction can be issued to treat contractual appointees as regular members of service

The Court found that the CAT failed to determine a crucial factual dispute: whether the Petitioners actually discharged duties post-June 30, 2022

The court held that if the record (duty rosters, attendance sheets, gate entries) proves work was taken, the lack of a formal extension is not a valid ground to deny wages

The court partially allowed the petitions by directing the Respondent Hospitals to conduct a case-by-case determination of whether work was taken after June 30, 2022

This exercise must be completed within eight weeks using all available records (attendance rosters, gate entries, etc.). Admissible wages for the period actually worked must be released within four weeks of determination. Any disallowance of claims must be supported by a reasoned order