12 June 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union of India, affirming an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that directed the regularization of several ad-hoc Stenographer Grade-D employees. The judgment emphasizes that prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service in essential roles, even if initially ad-hoc, warrants regularization, particularly when the initial appointment process was fair and transparent.

The case involved three petitioners, Mrs. Shilpi Gupta, Ms. Arti, and Ms. Neha, who were initially appointed as Stenographer Grade-D on an ad-hoc basis between 2012 and 2014. Their appointments, made after a selection process involving nominations from the Directorate of Employment, a trade test, and an interview, were for a period of three months but were continuously extended with artificial breaks for nearly a decade. In February 2023, their services were discontinued and they were re-appointed on a contractual basis with a fixed remuneration, a move that prompted them to approach the CAT.

Background of the Dispute:

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had issued an Office Memorandum in 2001 prohibiting ad-hoc appointments from the open market. However, the CAT itself requisitioned candidates through the Directorate of Employment for the Stenographer Grade-D posts in 2012. The respondents were selected through this process, and their appointment letters explicitly stated the ad-hoc nature of their engagement, disavowing any claim to regular appointment or seniority benefits.

Crucially, the petitioners contended that the Recruitment Rules at the time did not mandate selection solely through the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). They also highlighted that in the past, several other ad-hoc stenographers had been regularized by the CAT.

The Union of India, represented by the petitioners in the High Court, argued that the respondents could not claim regularization due to the clear terms of their initial ad-hoc appointment. They also cited the availability of regularly selected candidates through the SSC, suggesting that regularizing the respondents would exceed the sanctioned strength. Furthermore, they pointed to a similar case in the Allahabad High Court where regularization was not granted, only reinstatement until regular appointments were made.

The Tribunal's and High Court's Rationale:

The CAT, in its order dated April 26, 2024, deemed the ad-hoc/contractual engagement with intermittent breaks "arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." It directed the regular appointment of the applicants as Stenographer Grade-D from their initial appointment date, along with consequential benefits such as pay fixation, annual increments, and consideration for promotion schemes.

The Delhi High Court, after considering detailed submissions, upheld the CAT's decision, drawing heavily from recent Supreme Court judgments in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, and Union of India by Government of Puducherry & Anr. v. K. Velajagan & Ors. The High Court reiterated the principles laid down in these cases, particularly emphasizing the distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments as established in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

The key takeaways from the High Court's analysis include:

• Substance Over Nomenclature: The Court stressed that the "essence of employment" should be considered, not merely the label (ad-hoc, temporary, contractual). Factors like sustained contribution, integral nature of work, and absence of illegal entry are paramount.
• Perennial Nature of Work: If employees are engaged in essential, perennial duties indispensable for daily functioning, their posts should be treated as regular, regardless of how their initial engagements were labeled.
• Fair Selection Process: Even if the initial appointment was termed ad-hoc, if it followed a proper selection process (advertisement, competitive consideration of candidates), denial of regularization after long service constitutes an unfair labor practice.
• Exploitation of Temporary Labels: The Court noted that Uma Devi was intended to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments, not to penalize long-serving employees fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions. It criticized the misuse of "temporary" labels to deny basic rights and benefits.
• Irregular vs. Illegal Appointments: Appointments that are merely "irregular" (lacking adherence to procedural formalities but otherwise legitimate) are eligible for regularization under certain conditions, especially after continuous service exceeding ten years in sanctioned posts.

In the present case, the High Court observed that the respondents were appointed through a transparent process, possessed the requisite qualifications, and worked against sanctioned posts for 9 to 10 years with no adverse reports. The Court also found no distinction in the nature of work performed by the respondents compared to regularly appointed stenographers.

Regarding the argument about exceeding sanctioned strength, the Court noted that current vacancies existed and future vacancies or the creation of supernumerary posts could accommodate the regularized employees. The Allahabad High Court judgment cited by the petitioners was distinguished on the grounds that it did not involve a claim for regularization.

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court found no infirmity in the CAT's directions, asserting that denying regularization in such circumstances would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance against the exploitation of workers through prolonged temporary engagements for essential and continuous governmental functions.