Respondents must decide contractual nursing and paramedical staff regularization claims within four months.

The applicants were contractual Nursing Officers and paramedical staff engaged by various hospitals under the Government of NCT of Delhi pursuant to contractual advertisements issued from time to time. They claimed to have served continuously for approximately 14–18 years, including against sanctioned posts.

They sought regularization from their initial dates of appointment, consequential pay and service benefits, and quashing or reservation of posts advertised for regular recruitment so that the applicants could be accommodated.

The respondents opposed the applications on the ground that the applicants had been appointed purely on contract as a stopgap arrangement, that the contractual terms conferred no right to regular appointment, and that regularization would violate the constitutional requirements of equality of opportunity under Article 16 and the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi .

During the proceedings, the applicants relied on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Pawan Sharma & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors. , dated 10 November 2025, directing regularization of contractual Nursing and Paramedical Staff against the posts on which they were originally appointed.

The respondents also placed on record a circular dated 6 August 2026 indicating that the process of identifying and considering contractual paramedical staff for regularization had commenced.

Whether the applicants, who had served as contractual Nursing Officers and paramedical staff for several years, were entitled to consideration and regularization in light of the directions issued in Pawan Sharma and subsequent proceedings.

Whether the respondents should be directed to regularize the applicants from their initial dates of appointment and grant consequential service benefits, or otherwise reserve the advertised posts for their appointment.

Whether the applicants’ claims were barred by the contractual nature of their appointments and the principles governing regularization under Uma Devi .

The Tribunal considered the constitutional requirement of equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16 and the principles governing regularization of temporary or contractual employees stated in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , namely that contractual or ad hoc appointment ordinarily does not create an enforceable right to regularization.

It also noted the Delhi High Court’s decision in Kumar Mayank v. Delhi Technological University , which cautioned that regularization of persons appointed through advertisements expressly limited to contractual or temporary employment could undermine the ratio of Uma Devi .

However, the Tribunal applied the subsequent binding directions in Pawan Sharma & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors. , under which contractual Nursing and Paramedical Staff were directed to be regularized against the posts on which they were originally appointed, with regular pay fixation and consequential benefits but without back wages.

The Supreme Court upheld that direction while clarifying that the seniority of persons regularly appointed between the applicants’ initial appointments and the date of judgment would not be disturbed; the applicants would rank below such regularly appointed candidates.

The Tribunal also relied on the Delhi High Court’s order dated 29 July 2026 in the contempt proceedings, recording the respondents’ undertaking that the regularization process would be completed within four months.

The Tribunal found that the legal objections based on the contractual nature of the applicants’ appointments and Uma Devi had already been considered in Pawan Sharma and could not be reopened at this stage.

The respondents’ circular dated 6 August 2026 further demonstrated that the Department had commenced the process of considering regularization of contractual Nursing and Paramedical Staff in compliance with the High Court’s judgment.

Since the present applicants belonged to the same class of long-serving contractual personnel and the parties accepted that the issue was identical to that decided in Pawan Sharma and in the Tribunal’s order in Suman Lata Bhardwaj , the Tribunal considered it appropriate to issue a limited direction for consideration and decision on regularization rather than independently adjudicating each applicant’s eligibility.

The order therefore preserved the applicable seniority protection and left the respondents to undertake the regularization process in accordance with the governing judgments.

The pending Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of, there was no order as to costs, and a copy of the common order was directed to be placed in the files of all connected cases.

The Tribunal did not itself grant retrospective regularization or back wages; instead, it directed completion of the regularization process in accordance with Pawan Sharma , subject to the Supreme Court’s clarification concerning inter se seniority.