[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mohinder Pal & Ors vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors on 16 April, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 02nd February, 2026
Pronounced on: 16th April, 2026
+ W.P. (C) 4216/2007
1. SHRI MOHINDER PAL
S/o Sh. Tula Ram
R/o H. No.100-A, Vikas Vihar,
Kakraula, New Delhi.
2. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR
S/o Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o V.P.O.- Dulhera, Jhajjar, Haryana.
3. SHRI VAZIR SINGH
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o H.No.K-80, Bal Udyan Road,
Uttam Nagar,New Delhi.
4. SHRI SANJAY SINGH
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh
R/o V.P.O. Salaudha, Jhajjar, Haryana.
5. SHRI BIRENDER KUMAR
S/o Sh. Madan Shah
R/o H.No.13, Type-1st, Second Floor, NSIT,
Azad Hind Fauz Marg, Sec.-3, Dwarka, New Delhi.
6. SHRI HARI OM SINGH
S/o Sh.Hoshiar Singh
R/o V.P.O. Salaudha, Jhajjar, Haryana.
7. SHRI BALRAJ
S/o Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o V.P.O.- Nizampur, New Delhi.
8. SHRI RAMPHAL
S/o Sh. Singh Ram
R/o V.P.O.- Chhatera, Bhadurpur,
Sonepat, Haryana.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4216/2007 Page 1 of 14
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2026
12:50:09
9. SHRI SAT PAL SINGH
S/o Sh. Sultan Chand
R/o V.P.O.- Nizampur, New Delhi.
10. SHRI PAVITRA KUMAR DAS
S/o Shri Devendra Das
R/o H.No.D-62, Sewak Park, New Delhi.
11. SHRI LAL SINGH
S/oShri Kripa Ram
R/o RZD-62, Sewak Park, New Delhi.
12. SHRI BIREMDRA PRASAD NIRALA
S/o Shri Nathuni Prasad
R/o H.No.B-665, Mahavir Enclave,
Part-II, New Delhi.
13. SHRI BENI LAL
S/o Shri Nathuni Prasad
R/o H.No.B-665, Mahavir Enclave,
Part-II, New Delhi.
14. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR
S/o S.R. SARDAR SINGH
R/o H.No.513/4, Hari Nagar, Line Park,
Bahadurgah,District Jhajjar, Haryana.
15. SHRI JAGBIR SINGH
S/o Shri Hoshiar Singh
R/o H.No.27-C, V.P.O.- Mundka, Delhi.
16. SHRI RAM SWAROOP PRASAD
S/o Shri Bhola Prasad
C/o Shri Jag Mohan Singh
H.No.RZ-15, G-1st, Sita Puri,
Part-II, New Delhi.
17. SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH
S/o Sh. Rajdeo Singh
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 4216/2007 Page 2 of 14
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2026
12:50:09
R/o A-1-337, Madhu Vihar, Delhi. ....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Anjali Kumari and Mr.
JitendraKumar Singh, Advocates.
versus
1. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Through the Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, Near ITO, New Delhi.
2. PROFESSOR P.B. INDER SAIN
Chairman, Board of Governing Body,
Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology,
(formerly Delhi Institute of Technology)
an autonomous Institute of Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi,
Azad Hind Fauj Marg, Sector-3, Dwarka,New Delhi.
3. DR. RANJIT SINGH
Director-cum-Principal
Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology,
(formerly Delhi Institute of Technology)
an autonomous Institute of Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi,
Azad Hind Fauj Marg, Sector-3, Dwarka,New Delhi. ....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat Standing
Counsel, GNCTDServices withMr.
Nitesh Kumar Singh,Ms. Aliza
Alamand Mr. MohnishSehrawat,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ Petition under Articles226/227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed on behalf of 17 Petitioners for directing the Respondents to
regularize the Petitioners from their respective datesof joining with the
Respondents as Daily Wager, as their Fundamental Right under Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioners stated that the Respondent No.2 is a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and enjoys monopoly
status conferred upon it by the State. In 1987, Respondent No.2 was wholly
managed by Respondent No.1 and only in 1987, Society was formed for
taking care of administration and other matters in regard to Respondent
No.2. Furthermore, Respondent No.2received maximum financial assistance
from the State and a large quantum of State control is also presentin its
functioning.
3. Petitioners submit that all 17 Petitioners were employed with
Respondent No.2 as casual labour, in different jobs, such as gardener, peon,
cleaner&helper etc. Since 1991, Petitioners used to be appointed vide Office
Orders issued by Respondent No.2 and the appointment was always for 89
days.They were appointed on different dates for a long period by showing
one artificial break after every 89 days. Petitioners were paid by
Respondent No.2 in accordance with the dailywage rate, as per the
guidelines of Respondent No.1. up to 09.01.2006.
4. Right from the inception, Respondent No.2 had been following an
unfair and improper policy ofemploying the Petitioners for a period of 89
days, by giving a gap of one day. Thereafter, they used to be re-appointed
for a fresh period of 89 days. This exercise was conducted only with a
purpose to defeat anyclaim for regularization that the Petitioners might
claim in future.
5. Petitioners claim that while continuing to work with Respondent
No.2, they completed 230 days of service in a given period of 365 days.
They made various representations and had verbal discussions for being
appointed and absorbed on a regular basis. However, no action was taken by
the Respondents on the representations and the Petitioners continued to be
employed for a period of 89 daysat a time.
6. Petitioners also brought to the attention of the Respondents the
guidelines / circular by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training dated 07.06.1988, which
was applicable to the Respondents.
7. A Circular dated 08.01.1990 issued by Finance Secretary, Delhi
Administration was circulated amongst all the Heads of Departments of
Delhi Administration, regarding casual workers and daily wagers. The
Circular mentioned that the Executive Council had decided to adopt
guidelines contained in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.490/4/2/86-
Estt.(C) dated 07.06.1988 relating to recruitment of casual workers and
persons on daily wages. It was also mentioned that keeping in view the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the daily wagers, who had been
employed for more than six months, that is to say, a period of 180 days,
should be regularized. Petitioners claimed that they have worked for
more than 240 days in a year and therefore, were entitled for being
regularized.
8. Another Guideline dated 10.09.1993 was issued by the Department of
Personnel and Training, wherein it was decided to give temporary status to
all casual 1abourers/employees, who were in employment onthe date of
issuance, i.e. 10.09.1993, and who had rendered continuous service for at
least one year which is to say, for a period of at least 240 days.
9. This Office Memorandum further indicated that conferment of
temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of
regular Group 'D' posts. It further states that conferment of temporary status
on acasual laborer, would not involve any change in their duties and
responsibilities, they may be deployed anywhere within the
recruitmentunit/territorial circle, on the basis of availability of work. It
further stated that such casual labourers with temporary status, will not be
brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through
regular selection process for Group 'D' posts.
10. In view of these Office Memorandums dated 08.01.1990 and
10.09.1993, Petitioners again made representation to the Respondents for
being granted a temporary status, but no action was taken vide Office Order
dated 22.11.1995, Petitioners' period of temporary employment was
extended for another period of 89 days from 02.11.1995 to 29.01.1996.
11. Thereafter, when Petitioners reported for duty on 09.01.1996, they
were informed by one Shri Sanjay Uppal, employed in the capacity of
Project Officer with Respondent No.2, that henceforth, Petitioners would be
working under the private contractors and would not be employed by the
Respondents thereafter.
12. Feeling aggrieved and shocked by this information, Petitioners again
met the Officers concerned. The main grievance was that they being
employed and receiving salary from Respondent No.2,could not be
transferred arbitrarily to a private contractor.
13. On 10.01.1996, the Petitioners gave a representation to Respondent
No. 2, as their transfer was patently illegal, unjust and malafide. The
Petitioners reported for work on daily basis, but were not allowed to carry
on their duties on 25.01.1996, Sh. Sanjay Uppal informed them that until
they signed an undertaking stating that they would be ready and willing to
work for private contractors after 29.01.1996, they would not be allowed to
continue in their present job. The Petitioners refused this illegal attempt to
force them to work for the private person. Even otherwise, this offer
condition was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
and was in contravention of Officer Memorandum.
14. The Respondents had persons who were junior to Petitioners, who had
been unconditionally retained, while illegal and unjust conditions were
imposed upon the Petitioners, for allowing them to continue in employment.
Despite bringing this fact to the knowledge of Respondents, no action was
taken. Respondents had claimed that this condition was imposed due to there
being no work for the Petitioner, however, if that was the case, the workers
who were junior to the Petitioners, should have been first given offer of this
optional employment with the private contractor.
15. The Petitioners were working in Dwarka Project of Delhi Institute of
Technology. There was plenty of work for the Petitioners in the capacity of
gardeners, peons, helpers and cleaners etc. Therefore, it was only with a
view to deprive the Petitioners of their rightful regularization that the
Respondents mooted the idea of making them work with the private
contractor.
16. It further came to the knowledge of the Petitioners that the
Respondents had entered into an Agreement with M/s Nilothi Labour
Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. represented by one Sh. Manoj
Kumar, whereby Respondents agreed to award the work of security services
and horticulture to the Co-operative Society, in total disregard to the
interests and welfare of the Petitioners.
17. In middle of January 1996, the Petitioners were not allowed to work
on their assigned duties and were forwarded to work under private
contractor.
18. Petitioners thus, filed Writ Petition (C) No. 3274/1996 titled as Ashok
Kumar Sharma and Others vs. NCT of Delhi and Others before this Court.
Notice was issued on thisWrit Petition and after hearing the Petition, the
Writ was disposed of with the directions that the Respondent Institute to
keep Petitioners on a Panel, prepared on the basis of length of service and
as and when the vacancy arises against a Regular Class IV Post, the
Petitioners would be given preference in employment to such Posts,
provided their fulfilling the eligibility criteria for such Posts. While
considering the cases of the Petitioners for such appointment, weightage of
their past services shall also be given and age bar, if any, shall not be made
applicable in the cases of Petitioners.
19. Thereafter, there existed regular posts with the Respondents, but they
got the work done through contractors, employees and other daily wage
employees, despite vacant posts and failed to comply with the directions of
this Court. The Petitioners thus, filed a Contempt Petition bearing No. CCP
No.328/1998. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the
Respondents instead of fulfilling the vacancies from the Petitioners,
advertised for fulfilling the vacancies of Class IV and sought Applications
from public atlarge.
20. Petitioners then again filed CWP No.2435/2000 for stay against the
advertised vacancies. This Court, videOrder dated 15.05.2000, restrained the
Respondents from finalizing the Selection List on the basis of Employment
Notice No. 2/2000.
21. In the face of the restraintOrder, Respondents tried to create friction
amongst Petitioners and gave some attractive greed to the Petitioners. The
Respondents succeeded in their motive as Shri Daulat Ram, who was
looking after all the affairs of legal cases of the Petitioners and could be a
leader, was allowed to join the duties from 15.05.2000, i.e. on the same day
when the Restraint Order was passed by this Court.
22. The appointment of Shri Daulat Ram was considered from General
Provident Fund-cum-Pension Gratuity Scheme, despite the fact that he was
junior to all the Petitioners, as he had joined only in 1995, but to break the
unity of the Petitioners, he was considered beyond all Rules and
Regulations.
23. The Contempt Petition was pending, but the Respondents were not
ready to comply with the direction issued by this Court. Thereafter, the
Respondents filed an Application bearing CM No.5733/2004 and produced a
Panel of Workers for empanelment of the Petitionersand the same was
accepted by the Petitioners and they withdrew their Contempt Application.
24. The Respondents, in the meantime, issued Offer of Appointment to
Petitioners, for different Posts vide Letter dated 11.06.2004, wherein some
terms and conditions were directed to be complied with. It stated that the
Petitioners shall remain on probation for one year and shall be appointed
subject to the conditions that they were fit after medical examination and
also procured Character Certificates. It is claimed that this was an arbitrary
clause since the Petitioners had already served Respondents for the long
time.
25. After the long process, the Petitioners were allowed to join, after their
medical examination on different dates i.e. 20.07.2004 and thereafter, were
given payment for salary from their respective dates.
26. The Petitioners requested the Respondents about their date of joining.
Despite assurances, Letters were issued in this regard, but Petitioners were
then forced to write a letter to the Respondents, but they were not in a
position to explain why they would not be considered for provident fund
benefits, retirement benefits as well as pension from their date of joining, i.e.
initial joining as daily worker, as the other juniors who had joined the
Respondents after joining the Petitioners, were granted exceptional
opportunity. It is claimed that the Petitioners were not confirmed on a
regular post from the date of joining as daily wagers and for increment and
also for fixation on basic pay from the date of joining.
27. The Respondents issued Letter dated 21.12.2006 in response to the
Letters and denied them the regular scale and benefits from the date of
initial joining. Hence, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition to direct
that their dates of joining be considered for regularization of service and
for giving increments and other benefits accordingly.
28. Counter Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents, who took
the preliminary objection that the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed on
the grounds of constructive Res Judicata. The Petitioners, who were
working on daily wages with the answering Respondents on Group D Posts
on different dates starting from 1991, were discontinued from January 1996.
Petitioners had then filed CWP No.3274/1996 seeking continuation in
service and regularization. This Writ was disposed of on 29.04.1998, as this
Court was of the view that the Petitioners, cannot as a matter of right, claim
regularization of their service, only because they had completed 240 days of
service with the Respondent Institute. This Court held that they can be given
regular appointment only in accordance with the Rules applicable to the
Institute.
29. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi
Development Horticulture Employees' Union vs. Delhi Administration, AIR
1992 SC 789, this Court directed the empanelment of the Petitioners on the
basis of length of service and to consider them as and when regular
vacancies arose in Regular Class IV Posts with preference in employment
being given to the Petitioners, subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria.
The weightage of past service was directed to be given and age bar was held
to be not applicable to the Petitioners.
30. This Court did not grant the relief of regularization to the Petitioners
and only granted them an option for regular appointment against the
vacancies that may arise. The present Petition is barred by Principle of
constructive Res Judicata. Reliance is placed on State of Karnataka vs. Uma
Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.
31. Respondents further stated that the directions of the High Court were
complied with and the Panel was prepared and the Contempt Petition was
accordingly, withdrawn by the petitioners. The Appointment Letters were
issued to the individuals including the Petitioners and other leftover
individuals, on 11.06.2004 and on they having accepted the same, appointed
them on probation, after they were declared medically fit. Finally, regular
appointments were accepted by the Petitioners, who have joined service.
Now they cannot seek regularization from the date of their initial
appointment as daily wagers 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively,
especially when they got disengaged in January 1996.
32. The Representation of the Petitioners were rejectedvide Letter dated
21.12.2006 and the regular appointments were given strictly as per the
Orders of this Court. The individuals are entitled to regular scales and
benefit of regular posts only from the date of their appointment on regular
basis.
33. On merit, all the amendments made in the present petition were
denied and it was asserted that there was no merit in this Writ Petition.
34. Petitioners, in their Rejoinder, reaffirmed the assertions as made in
the Petition.
35. Written Synopsis was filed by the Petitioners as well as the
Respondents respectively on similar lines.
Submissions heard and record perused.
36. The Petitioners were admittedly appointed between 1991-1994 as
daily wagers on various posts as gardeners, peons, cleaners, helpers and
security guards etc. It is also not in dispute that their services were
terminated on 1996, when they were put in the service of the private
contractor.
37. Admittedly, Writ Petition (C) No. 3274/1996 was filed by the
Petitioners, wherein the violation of O.M. dated 07.06.1988 and 10.09.1993
were claimed. Basically, their contention was that they were being made to
work for 89 days and given an artificial break of one day, even though they
had been working regularly on the posts.
38. In the Writ Petition, as has been rightly submitted by the
Respondents, this issue of artificial break was specifically considered in the
light of the two O.M dated 07.06.1988 and 10.09.1993 and while the claim
for regularization of the employees was not accepted, directions were given
for empanelment of these Petitioners and similarly placed individuals and
further direction was given to give them preference, as and when the
vacancy in the Regular Class IV Category arose.
39. It is not in dispute that as and when the regular vacancy arose, due
process was followed and all the Petitioners herein,were appointed on
regular basis, as per their qualifications and eligibility.
40. The sole grievance of the Petitioners is that they must be given
regular appointment from the day when they first joined as daily wager and
not from the date of appointment in the regular appointment. This argument
is completely fallacious for the simple reason that prior to their regular
appointment, they were only working as daily wagers and cannot claim a
lien of regularization.
41. It has been rightly argued that in the Writ Petition (C) No. 3274/1996,
same relief was claimed, but directions for only empanelment were given.
There is no service jurisprudence, which says that the regularization of an
employee can be done from a prior date, on which he may have been
working on daily wages.
42. The Petitioners have been granted the service benefits in accordance
with the Rules and Law from the date of their regular appointment. The
claim made by the Petitioners is without basis and any merit, the present
Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending Applications are disposed of,
accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
APRIL 16, 2026/R
