Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Anr vs Lakshman Singh Negi And Ors on 24 September, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.09.2025
+ W.P.(C) 13763/2025 & CM APPL. 56432-34/2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Ms.Arunima Dwivedi,
CGSC, Mr.Sainyam Bhardwaj,
Adv.
versus
LAKSHMAN SINGH NEGI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.A.K.Trevedi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated
21.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') in
O.A. No.2355/2023, titled Lakshman Singh Negi & Ors. v. Union of
India & Anr., allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondents herein
with the following directions:
"7. In view of the same the present OA is also
allowed with the following directions:-
7.1 Those applicants, who have completed 10
years or more service, be extended the same
benefit as has been extended by the
respondents vide their Office Order No.A-
64/62/2022- Adm.II dated 17.05.2023 of
Archaeological Survey of India.
7.2 The aforementioned order be issued within
a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order."
2. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present
petition arises, the respondents were appointed as Monument
Attendants albeit on a casual basis in the Archaeological Survey of
India, and were granted temporary status as per the Office
Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, and were subsequently regularised,
with effect from 31.08.2015, to the post of Multi Tasking Staff
(MTS). The dates of their initial engagement and the dates of their
regularisation are as under:
Sl.No. Name Date of initial Date of
engagement Regularization
1. Lakshaman Singh 16.07.1989 31.8.2015
Negi
2. Subhash Chand 07.04.1988 31.8.2015
3. Amarnath 08.08.1986 31.8.2015
4. Kishore Kumar Joshi 12.03.1989 31.8.2015
5. Chandan Singh 02.07.1989 31.8.2015
6. Ramesh Kudi 26.02.1992 31.8.2015
7. Mohan Chandra 06.11.1988 31.8.2015
8. Devi Lal 07.12.1984 31.8.2015
3. Another batch of persons, who were also working as Monument
Attendants but were not regularised, upon completion of ten years of
service, sought regularisation, which eventually resulted in a judgment
passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Ghulam Nabi
Ahanger & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., 2018:JKLHC:SGR:109,
wherein the High Court allowed the petition of the petitioners therein
and directed regularisation of their services from the date they had
completed 10 years of continuous service, giving them the same
treatment as had been provided to the similarly situated casual
labourers. The challenge against the said judgment also stood rejected
right till the Supreme Court.
4. In compliance with the said judgment, the petitioners issued the
Office Order dated 04.07.2023, regularising the services of the
petitioners in the said case, with effect from the completion of 10
years of service. From the Office Order, it is apparent that all these
persons had been appointed as Monument Attendants much after the
respondents had been appointed to the said post, but were given
regularisation from a date much before the respondents herein, that is,
upon them completing 10 years of service.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein approached the
learned Tribunal by way of the above O.A. The learned Tribunal, as
noted hereinabove, allowed the O.A. with the above quoted directions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
respondents, having accepted their regularisation in terms of the OM
dated 10.09.1993 with effect from 31.08.2015, could not seek the
retrospective regularisation from the date of completion of 10 years of
service solely based on the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High
Court in Ghulam Nabi Ahanger & Ors. (supra). She further submits
that there was no challenge by the respondents to the OM dated
10.09.1993, in terms of which they have been regularised, in fact, after
giving relaxations.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the respondents are admittedly senior to the petitioners
before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. He submits that merely
because the petitioners themselves decided to regularise the
respondents, finding them fit for the same, while others had to
approach the Courts for their regularisation, should not result in the
respondents having to suffer in the matter of seniority. He submits that
the date of regularisation determines the seniority of the respondents
at the post of MTS and, therefore, the respondents would perpetually
suffer if the date of their regularisation is not amended accordingly.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
9. It is not disputed that the respondents have been appointed to
the post of Monument Attendant and, therefore, regularised to the post
of MTS, much prior to the petitioners before the Jammu and Kashmir
High Court. It is also not disputed that the respondents, upon being
found fit, were regularised by the petitioners, on their own, to the post
of MTS, in terms of OM dated 10.09.1993, while the petitioners
before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court were not so regularised,
and instead, had to approach the Court. The judgment of the Jammu
and Kashmir High Court has also been implemented as far as those
petitioners are concerned.
10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
judgment had been implemented on the threat of contempt, it is not
disputed that challenge to the said judgment has also been dismissed
right till the Supreme Court. In terms of the said judgment,
regularisation has to be from the date of completion of 10 years of
service. The benefit could not have been denied to the respondents
only because they had been regularised earlier, thereby leading to loss
of seniority and further service benefits.
11. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the Impugned
Order passed by the learned Tribunal.
12. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending
applications are also disposed of, having been rendered infructuous.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025/Arya/SJ
