Delhi High Court Directs Regularization Of Contractual Nursing And Paramedical Staff; Says Continuous, Blemish-Free Service Entitles Employees To Regular Status
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to regularize the services of contractual nursing and paramedical staff who had served continuously for several years in various state-run hospitals. The Court held that employees engaged through lawful recruitment processes and performing perennial duties could not be denied regularization merely because their appointments were termed contractual. The Bench observed that long, blemish-free service entitled such employees to be treated at par with regular staff, drawing support from recent Supreme Court precedents recognizing the rights of ad hoc and temporary workers. The Court consequently ordered the Delhi government to extend regular pay and service benefits to the petitioners.
The petitions were filed by groups of contractual nursing and paramedical employees working in hospitals managed by the Government of NCT of Delhi. They were initially appointed through public advertisements and walk-in interviews on an eleven-month contractual basis, with their services renewed periodically over the years.
The petitioners stated that they had rendered continuous and blemish-free service for more than a decade while performing duties identical to those of regular staff. They contended that their appointments had followed lawful recruitment procedures and that the continued denial of regular status violated their right to equality and fair treatment in public employment.
The respondents, representing the Delhi government, opposed the claim. They submitted that the petitioners’ appointments were purely contractual, without sanctioned posts, and did not confer any right to regularization. It was further argued that any change in their status would require administrative approval and financial sanction from the competent authority.
The evidence placed before the Court included appointment orders, advertisements issued for recruitment, and documents showing successive extensions of service. The Court examined the matter in light of constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 16, and 21, as well as judicial precedents distinguishing irregular from illegal appointments in public employment.
The Division Bench observed that “the rights of persons who have rendered uninterrupted, blemish-free service for long, following initial appointments on ‘casual’, ‘contractual’, ‘ad hoc’ or ‘temporary’ basis, can no longer be denied on the strength of these labels.” It stated that “continuous service, following a process of recruitment which is not illegal, ipso facto entitles such appointees to regularization.” The Court further noted that “in such cases, it does not matter whether the posts against which the appointments were made are temporary or permanent, or even whether the appointees possess the requisite educational qualifications.”
The Bench referred to the series of recent Supreme Court decisions—Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal, and Dharam Singh—and recorded that “these judgments have fundamentally redrawn the horizons of service jurisprudence” by recognizing the rights of employees whose long-term service was previously labeled “temporary.” It observed that “procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service.”
The Court discussed the Jaggo case, quoting that “the respondents’ conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings… revealed lack of bona fide intentions.” It emphasized the Supreme Court’s observation that “consistent performance over long tenures further solidifies the claim for regularization,” and that “denial of this benefit amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.”
Referring to Dharam Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bench quoted that “while creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness.” It recorded that “delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers.”
The Bench also noted that “the Supreme Court went to the extent of directing creation of posts to accommodate and regularize the appellants,” marking a significant shift from earlier rulings that restricted courts from issuing such directions. It recorded that “the operative scheme comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance is a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.”
Turning to the petitioners’ situation, the Court observed that “the petitioners were employed, albeit on contract basis, pursuant to advertisement… a regular selection process took place, qualifications were prescribed, and the petitioners fulfilled the qualifications.” It noted that “the nature of duties rendered by the petitioners, being nursing and para-medical duties, were, by their very nature, essential and perennial.” The Court recorded that “they have continued rendering uninterrupted service for close to twenty years” and that “the very fact they have been extended periodically against sanctioned posts indicates a continued need for their services.”
The Bench observed that “their case stands on a much better footing than those before the Supreme Court” because they were “duly qualified, appointed against sanctioned posts, and selected through regular recruitment.” It held that “these factors, by themselves, entitle the petitioners to be regularized in the posts against which they were originally appointed.”
Citing Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution, the Court stated that “the judgments in Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh are binding on us” and “we cannot craft an exception into the law declared by the Supreme Court.” It recorded that “petitioners who have earned a right to regularization cannot be compelled to participate in any recruitment exercise,” and that “the omission on their part to do so cannot derogate from their right to regularization.”
Finally, the Bench referred to Rohan Vijay Nahar v State of Maharashtra, observing that “the judiciary draws its strength from discipline and not dominion” and that “judicial discipline requires courtesy, restraint, and obedience to binding precedent even where a judge is personally unpersuaded.” It concluded that “to distinguish in name while disregarding in substance would be unlawful and unjust.”
The Court ordered that “Resultantly, the impugned orders of the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to be regularized against the posts on which they were originally appointed, irrespective of the labels governing such appointment. They would be entitled to fixation of pay treating them as having been regularly appointed ab initio. They shall also be entitled to all other benefits which would follow, except for back wages. These writ petitions are accordingly allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate with Ms. Hetvi Patel, Mr. Atul Kumar Srivastav, Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, Mr. Umesh Kumar, Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr. Kamran Khwaja, Advocates.
(For some connected matters: Ms. Monika Arora, Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar and Ms. Anamika Thakur, Advocates.)
For the Respondents: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel (GNCTD) with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates; Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocates; and Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Aveeraj Sharma, Ms. Priya Shukla and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocates.
Case Title: Pawan Sharma and Others v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9789 - DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2117/2025 and connected matters
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul
