Facts
The applicants, comprising 26 individuals including Shri Gyan Chand Sharma, aged about 51 years, and Mr. Mange Ram, aged about 54 years, are employed as Daily Wages Chowkidars and Daily Wages Rest Reliever Chowkidars.
Source reference: p.1-3They filed an Original Application (O.A. No.2628/2018) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking regularization of their services, pay parity, and other consequential benefits from the Respondents, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation.
Source reference: p.4-5, p.6The issue in this O.A. is acknowledged to be covered by the decision in *Subhash Chandra & Ors. v. Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.* (W.P.(C) No. 1818/2019), decided on 28.05.2025.
Source reference: p.6However, the respondents note that the *Subhash Chandra* judgment has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and is pending final adjudication.
Source reference: p.7The present O.A. was heard and decided in terms of a recent decision in *O.A. No. 1518/2018 and batch*, which was decided on 24.02.2026, considering analogous cases of Junior Engineers seeking regularization.
Source reference: p.7Issues
Whether the applicants, employed as Daily Wages Chowkidars, are entitled to regularization of their services, pay parity, and other consequential benefits from the date of their inception or from the date their juniors were regularized?
Source reference: p.6Whether the ongoing stay order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on a precedent case (Subhash Chandra) impacts the grant of immediate relief to the applicants in this present O.A.?
Source reference: p.7Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily applied the principles derived from the Supreme Court's judgment in *Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*, (2026 INSC 156), decided on 13.02.2026, which in turn relied on *Jaggo* and *Vinod Kumar v. Union of India* (2024) 9 SCC 327.
Source reference: p.15-18These judgments distinguish between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments, holding that regularization should be considered for employees in irregular appointments who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and served continuously for more than ten years, and where regularization is deemed appropriate despite procedural formalities.
Source reference: p.17-18The Court in *Pawan Kumar* stated that *Uma Devi* should not be misinterpreted to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees and highlighted that continuous, long-term service performing indispensable duties, without mala fide or illegalities in appointment, can demand fair regularization.
Source reference: p.17-18The Turbine also referenced the stay orders issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *MCD v. Manish Kumar & Ors.* (Order dated 14.02.2025) and *MCD v. Suresh Chand Sharma* (Order dated 08.08.2025) concerning similar reliefs.
Source reference: p.13, p.18Reasoning
The Tribunal recognized that the present matter for Chowkidars is covered by the precedent of *Subhash Chandra & Ors. v. Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.*, where the facts were similar.
Source reference: p.6However, the respondents pointed out that *Subhash Chandra* had been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was pending final adjudication.
Source reference: p.7The Tribunal then referred to its recent decision in *O.A. No. 1518/2018 and batch*, dated 24.02.2026, concerning similar issues of regularization for Junior Engineers.
Source reference: p.7In that batch of cases, the Tribunal noted that contractual appointments, though initially for short terms, continued uninterruptedly for nearly two decades against sanctioned and vacant regular posts, performing perennial duties.
Source reference: p.15It found that the appointments were made after due selection as per applicable Recruitment Rules and that no fault could be attributed to the applicants for continuing under contractual arrangements.
Source reference: p.15The Tribunal in the *O.A. No. 1518/2018 and batch* case also relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in *Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* (2026 INSC 156), which emphasized that the *Uma Devi* judgment should not be misinterpreted to deny regularization to long-serving employees, especially where appointments were "irregular" rather than "illegal".
Source reference: p.17-18Despite these strong arguments for regularization, the Tribunal acknowledged the stay orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases (*MCD v. Manish Kumar & Ors.* and *MCD v. Suresh Chand Sharma*).
Source reference: p.18This created a need for careful consideration regarding the nature and extent of relief that could be granted at the current stage.
Source reference: p.18Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the present O.A. in terms of the directions issued in *O.A. No. 1518/2018 and batch*.
The Tribunal directed that the services of the applicants shall not be dispensed with 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).
Source reference: p.18Furthermore, the claim of the applicants for regularization shall be considered and accorded on similar terms, or in accordance with such directions as may be issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions.
Source reference: p.18-19The pending M.A.(s), if any, also stand disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p.19Original Court PDF
Gyan Chand Sharma & Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. [O.A. No.2628/2018]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in