Facts
The 275 applicants are individuals working as Special Educators (Primary) on a contractual basis under the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)
Source reference: p. 1-42They approached the Tribunal seeking temporary status and regularization under the D.O.P. & T. Scheme effective from September 1, 1993, along with consequential benefits and arrears of pay, alleging they had served for over 30 years without permanent status
Source reference: p. 42the broader issue regarding the appointment and regularization of Special Educators is currently under active consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ongoing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132/2016, titled Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Source reference: p. 43Issues
1. Whether the respondents are obligated to grant the applicants temporary status and regularization under the D.O.P. & T. Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.1993
Source reference: p. 422. Whether the applicants’ services should be regularized in alignment with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding contractual Special Educators
Source reference: p. 43, 55Law Applied
Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993
Source reference: p. 42Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) and subsequent Supreme Court precedents including Jaggo v. UOI & Ors. (2024) and Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2025)
Source reference: p. 44Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., which directed the constitution of a Screening Committee (comprising the Disability Commissioner, Secretary of Education, and an RCI nominee) to evaluate contractual teachers based on Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) qualifications and the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)
Source reference: p. 49-53Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the matter of contractual Special Educators is highly specialized and currently governed by the interim and final directions of the Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey
Source reference: p. 43, 54The court analyzed the Supreme Court’s order dated 03.02.2026, which specifically directed that 1,443 contractual candidates appear before a Screening Committee to verify their TET and RCI credentials for potential appointment on a substantive basis
Source reference: p. 52-53The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicants' grievances regarding regularization and pay scales are identical to those being monitored by the Apex Court, their cases must be processed through the same mechanism
Source reference: p. 55It emphasized that preference is to be given to contractual employees already in service, provided they meet the statutory eligibility criteria (TET and RCI registration) as mandated by the higher judiciary
Source reference: p. 54-55Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application by directing the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey
the applicants' claims for regularization are subject to merit, fulfillment of prescribed eligibility conditions, and the evolving orders of the Apex Court
Source reference: p. 56The Tribunal further granted the applicants liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies if they remain aggrieved by any future adverse orders passed by the respondents
Source reference: p. 56All pending Miscellaneous Applications were similarly disposed of
Source reference: p. 56Original Court PDF
BRIJESH KUMAR PALvsGNCTD
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in