Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sourabh Luthra vs Gnctd on 19 September, 2025
1
Item No. 21/C-II
OA No. 1549/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1549/2025
Reserved on: 28.08.2025.
Pronounced on: 19.09.2025.
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
01 Sourabh Luthra, Law Officer [Contractual]
Aged about: 36 years, S/o Lt. Mr. Surender Kumar Luthra,
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail-11,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: 27/94/1/2, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi:110032.
Mobile Phone no. 9811394024
02 Bunty Koli, Law Officer [Contractual]
Aged about: 40 years, Son of Mr. Brahm Prakash,
Presently posted/working at:Central Jail-10,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi.
Resident of: 15/2, Boulevard Road, nr. Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi: 110054.
03 Laxmi Tripathi, Law Officer [Contractual]
Aged about: 37 years, Daughter of Mr. S. C. Tripathi,
Presently posted/working at Central Jail-12,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: 2286, A-Block, Greenfield Colony,
Faridabad, Haryana.
04 Nafees Chaudhary, Law Officer [Contractual]
Aged about:33 years, Son of Mr. Salauddin Chaudhary,
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail-15,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: 2286, A-Block, Greenfield Colony,
Delhi: 110095.
05 Ajay Saini, Law Officer [Contractual]
Aged about: 46 years, Son of Mr. Ram Narain Saini,
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail-1,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: A-217-A, Hari Nagar Clock Tower,
New Delhi: 110064.
06 Payal Raghav, Law Officer [Contractual]
Aged about: 39 years, D./ of Mr. Rajvir Singh Raghav,
2
Item No. 21/C-II
OA No. 1549/2025
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail-16,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: 780-A, Singh Sabha, Jheel, Geeta Colony,
Delhi: 110031.
07 Pramod Kumar, Law Officer [Contractual]
aged about: 50 years, Son of Mr. Jagdish Prasad,
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail- PHQ,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: Flat no. 0-1, Nilgiri Apartment, Khasra No.599,
Village Rangpuri, New Delhi: 110037, Delhi: 110092.
08 Ashish Bansal, Law Officer [Contractual]
aged about: 34 years, Son of Mr. R.A. Bansal,
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail -8 & 9,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: DA-78A, Hari Nagar, New Delhi: 110064.
09 Abhijit Shankar, Law Officer [Contractual]
aged about: 33 years, Son of Mr. Ramesh Kumar,
Presently posted/working at Central Jail -2 & 7,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: 0-4/4187, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi: 110070.
10 Zaigham Abbas, Law Officer [Contractual]
aged about 40 years, Son of Mr. Nawab Hasan Zaidi, ...
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail-4,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: R-104, 4th floor, 20 feet Road,
Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Delhi: 110025.
11 Jitendera, Law Officer [Contractual]
aged about: 38 years, Son of Mr. Daryab Singh,
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail-3,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: Flat no. 352, Chandrapriya Apartments,
Pocket: A-3, Sector - 8, Rohini, Delhi: 110085.
12 Mr. Sameer Yadav, Law Officer [Contractual]
aged about: 40 years, Son of Mr. Rajendra Yadav,
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail -13,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi,
Resident of: A-161, Gaur; Shankar Bhawan,
Main Market, Shakarpur, Delhi: 110092.
Mobile Phone no. 8923892255
13 Amit Goswami, Law Officer [Contractual]
aged about: 45 years, S/o. Lt Mr. Ashok Kumar Goswami,
Presently posted/working at: Central Jail-14,
Delhi Prisons, G.N.C.T. Delhi, Resident of: 1/277-B,
3
Item No. 21/C-II
OA No. 1549/2025
Shri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi: 110032.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Mr. Vivek Tadon)
Versus
01.Government of N.C.T. Delhi,
[Service to be effected upon/through
its: Chief Secretary, At: 4thlevel, C - Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi: 110002.]
email: [email protected]
02. Delhi Prisons [Central Jails],
Government of N.C.T. Delhi,
[Service to be effected upon/through its:
Director General [Prisons], Prisons Headquarter,
near Lajwanti Garden Chowk, Janakpuri,
New Delhi.] email: [email protected]
03.Home Department, Government of N.C.T. Delhi,
[Service to be effected upon/through its:
Principal Secretary [Home], Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi: 110002.] email: [email protected]
04. Department of Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs,
Government of N.C.T. Delhi,
[Service to be effected upon/through its:
Principal Secretary [Law and Justice], Delhi
Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi: 110002.]
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav with Ms Monika Bhargava)
4
Item No. 21/C-II
OA No. 1549/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
By way of the present O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants (13 in number), in Para 8 of the O.A., have prayed for the following reliefs: -
"a) Quashing and setting aside of OIC-Estt. Branch-PHQ upload memo no. F.18(26)/Estt./PHQ/2025/CDNo.
3799530/2947 dated 25.04.2025 with annexed thereto advertisement notice-2025 [Annexure A-1];
b) As usual continuation of the contractual employments of the Applicants with all consequential reliefs and benefits, including pay and allowances for the intermittent period i.e. 01.04.2025 to till rejoining of the Applicants;
Any other or further order or direction to grant complete relief to the applicants."
2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant and have prayed for dismissal of the present Original Application.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The Delhi Prisons/Respondent No. 2 presently comprises 16 Central Jails situated across three Prison Complexes, namely Tihar, Rohini, and Mandoli. Section 6 of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 mandates that every Central Jail shall have, inter alia, a Law Officer. The relevant statutory provision reads as under:
"6. For every prison there shall be a Superintendent, a Deputy Prisons Superintendent, a Medical Officer, a Law Officer, a Welfare Officer, and such other officers as the Government thinks it necessary."
3.1 It is submitted that although the statute requires a Law Officer for each prison, there has been only one sanctioned post of Law Officer in Delhi Prisons since its creation in 1993. With the number of Central Jails having increased to 16, this statutory 5 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 mandate remained unfulfilled. Consequently, a Public Interest Litigation (W.P. (C) No. 4173/2019, Amit Sahni Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.) was filed. By order dated 27.09.2019, the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, noting the submissions of the Respondents therein (i.e., GNCTD through its Home Department and Delhi Prisons) that the "steps for creation of posts of Law Officers for each Jail are under process", disposed of the petition. The matter was released from monitoring with a direction to the Respondents to complete the appointment process at the earliest, preferably within 12 weeks from receipt of the order.
3.2 Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 2 sought permission to engage Law Officers on a contractual basis, making it clear that such contractual appointments were to be purely temporary, initially for one year, and extendable only until the posts were created and filled on a regular basis, so as to comply with the directions of the Hon‟ble High Court. In compliance, 14 posts of Law Officer (Contractual) were publicly advertised, carrying emoluments of ₹35,400 + Dearness Allowance. A Selection Board was constituted, and after following due process, including interview, recommendation, offer of appointment, medical examination, police verification, and issuance of appointment orders, the applicants herein, along with one other candidate, were appointed as Law Officers (Contractual) for an initial period of one year.
6Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 3.3 Details of the applicants‟ contractual engagement are provided herein below for the ready reference of this Tribunal:
S.N Name [Mr./Ms.] Professional Date of Initial Qualification appointment/s ince working
1. Sameer Yadav LL.B. [2011] 01.09.2020 2 Bunty Koli LL.B. [2013] 01.09.2020
3. Laxmi Tripathi B.A.LL.B. [2011] LL.M. 01.09.2020 [2013]
4. Nafees Chaudhary LL.B. [2015] 01.09.2020
5. Ajay Saini LL.B. [2009] 02.09.2020
6. Payal Raghav B.A.LL.B. [2010] LL.M. 03.09.2020 [2014]
7. Pramod Kumar LL.B. [2002] 04.09.2020
8. Ashish Bansal B.A.LL.B. [2014] 04.09.2020
9. Abhijit Shankar B.A.LL.B. [2015] 04.09.2020
10. Zaigham Abbas LL.B. [2011] 17.09.2020
11. Jitendra LL.B. [2015] 01.10.2020
12. Sourabh Luthra B.A.LL.B. [2011] 05.10.2020
13. Amit Goswami B.A. LL.B. [2013] 29.12.2020 3.4 It is further stated that since there was no compliance within the stipulated time, a Contempt Petition [Cont. Cas. (C) No. 5/2020] came to be filed. During its pendency, the aforesaid contractual appointments were made. Thereafter, by order dated 21.12.2021, the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court disposed of the contempt petition after recording the compliance/submissions made by the Respondents. The Applicant Law Officers (Contractual), upon their appointment, started serving individually in different Central Jails under Delhi Prisons.
3.5 Subsequently, upon perusal of the proposal dated 16.12.2021 filed by the Respondents along with their status report dated 20.12.2021 in the aforesaid contempt case, it transpired that pending creation of the required 15 posts of Law Officer, the applicants‟ contractual appointments as Law Officers were actually made against one sanctioned post of Assistant Law Officer and thirteen sanctioned posts of Legal Assistant, both carrying identical pay scales. Consequently, the applicants were/are being paid only the minimum of Level-6 (₹35,400 + static DA) instead of their lawful entitlement as Law Officers i.e. 7 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 the minimum of Level-7 (₹44,900 + applicable DA) under the 7th CPC. Furthermore, though admissible, no other allowances or service-related facilities have been extended to them. The applicants repeatedly took up the issue with the Respondents, pointing out the anomaly/illegality and invoking the settled principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work", i.e., entitlement to the pay of the post on which they were appointed/working. However, except for plain assurances that the matter would be resolved upon creation of posts and arrears would then be paid, no relief was granted. Despite the lapse of nearly five years, and even though 3,241 new posts of different designations were created in Delhi Prisons on 06.09.2024, no new post of Law Officer was sanctioned.
3.6 On 09.07.2024, the applicants submitted a joint representation highlighting the aforesaid anomaly and illegality, and specifically seeking: (i) equal pay for equal work, (ii) salary of the post of Law Officer on which they were appointed/working, and (iii) clarification regarding leave entitlement. No action was taken thereon. It is relevant to submit that under law and rules, the applicants are entitled to the same facilities and benefits as other contractual employees working in different Departments/Establishments under the Government of NCT of Delhi. However, for reasons best known to the respondents, they are being denied such entitlements. It is further submitted that from the very beginning, the contractual appointments of the applicants were extended from time to time, including through ex post facto extensions, and for that purpose their work and conduct reports were regularly sought from the concerned controlling officers. However, for the tenure expiring on 31.03.2025, no such work and conduct reports were called. Instead, the applicants were orally informed that since they had raised the demand for equal pay for equal work and proper salary of the post of Law Officer, their contractual services were not likely to be continued.8
Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 Having no other remedy, the applicants submitted a detailed joint representation dated 17.03.2025, requesting the respondents to seek their work and conduct reports from the controlling officers for extension of service, and also to address non-compliance with the law governing contractual employment with respect to benefits such as Earned Leave Accumulation and Encashment, LTC, HRA, DA, Children Education Allowance, DGHS Medical Card, EPF, Gratuity, and other admissible facilities. The said representation was not replied to.
3.7 The applicants were, therefore, constrained to approach this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1100/2025 titled Sourabh Luthra & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein, by order dated 26.03.2025, this Tribunal, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the O.A. directing the competent authority to consider and dispose of the applicants‟ representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal‟s order. Despite the said directions, the Respondents did not extend the applicants‟ services, and their last extended contractual tenure expired on 31.03.2025. Thereafter, the Respondents issued an advisory to their officers not to permit the applicants‟ entry into the prison premises.
3.8 It is submitted that the respondents, acting in a vindictive manner and with the intent to defeat the rights and interests of the applicants, instead of extending their contractual appointments, issued an advertisement notice in 2025 inviting applications for 14 posts of Law Officers (Contractual) for a period up to 31.03.2026, within 15 days of its publication in the newspapers, i.e., on 26.04.2025. The said advertisement and conduct of the Respondents constitute a colourable exercise of power and are in direct violation of the well-settled legal principle that "a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another 9 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 contractual employee." The attempt of the respondents is evidently to replace the applicants with another set of contractual Law Officers, which is impermissible in law.
CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANTS:-
4. Advancing their case, the applicants submit that:-
i. Government of N.C.T. Delhi vide its office order dated29.11.2000 did permit to its contractual Para- medics/Nursing Officers leave including earned leave, half pay leave, casual leave, maternity, paternity, abortion leave and day offs at par with regular employees. Likewise, contractual employees in other Departments of Government of N.C.T. Delhi too are getting leaves at par with regular employees. Further, under the provisions of applicable Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel &Training) Government of India O.M. No. 12016\2\99-Estt.(L) dated 12.07.1999, past completion of 2 years of contractual service contractual employees are very much entitled for leave encashment up to 300 days at par with regular employees dependent upon the tenure of their contractual service. As such, though the applicants too are fully entitled but are being denied leave, leave accumulation at par with other contractual employees working in other Departments of Government of N.C.T. Delhi;
ii. Under the provisions of Rule „1‟ (3)(i) (iii) read with rule 2(1 )(2)of Central Civil Services [Leave Travel Concession] Rules,1988, a contractual employee upon completion of 1 [One] year of service is very much entitled for Leave Travel Concession, the rules being very much followed/applicable upon contractual employees of Government of N.C.T. Delhi still Leave Travel Concession, leave encashment attached 10 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 thereto for no rhyme and reason is not being allowed to the applicants;
iii. Health Department, Government of NCT Delhi vide its orderno.F.1 (550)/TRC/H&FW/2012/12026-12061 dated 19.11.2012,did permit its contractual employees salary at the minimum of the pay band of the respective/corresponding post including Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Transport Allowance, Patient Care Allowance, Uniform Allowance, Washing Allowance, Nursing Allowance etc. Further, following legal recourse, the Craft Instructors [Contractual] in Training and Technical Education Department, Government of N.C.T. Delhi too are being granted pay, allowances at par with regular Craft Instructors following the principle of equal pay for equal work without increment, as such, though the applicant herein too are fully entitled but are being denied the pay, allowances with arrears of the post they have been appointed/working i.e. Law Officer at par with regular Law Officer except the distinction been drawn i.e. increment;
iv. Vide order dated 19.03.2021 followed by Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of N.C.T. Delhi circular no. F.8(218)/Nursing/H&FW/2019-596-599 dated21.06.2022 Medical Card facility [Health Card Benefits] are admissible to the contractual Nursing/Paramedical employees and their families at par with their regular counter parts as ordered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court order dated 06.11.2013 as passed in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 6798/2002,on payment of subscription, as such, the applicants too are entitled for the Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme, on payment of subscription, but aren't being allowed to avail the facility;
11Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 v. That as per the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, every establishment having 20 or more employees on any day in preceding year is to mandatorily adopt and the employees are entitled to subscribe towards, avail benefits of Employees Provident Fund Scheme and as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 each and every establishment having 10 or more employees on any day in preceding year is mandatorily liable to pay to its employees and the employees are entitled to receive Gratuity from its employer. Despite that been the statutory position, the applicants are not being allowed the benefits of the aforesaid beneficial legislation. The State been a model employer, there's no reason as to why the benefits of said Acts shouldn't apply to its contractual employees including the Applicants. Worthwhile to add that Directorate of Education, „GNCTD‟ complying with the judgment dated 03.08.2021 as passed by this Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 11154/2019 titled Janardan Sharma Vs. Government of N.C.T. Delhi, vide its order dated 13.12.2022 has allowed payment of gratuity to its Part Time Vocational Teachers engaged on consolidated salary.
4.2 It is well settled principle of law that one set of contract employees cannot be replaced by another set of contract employees in view of the order/judgment dated 12.08.1992 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Others, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 118, and therefore, the inviting the applications from fresh appointment on contract basis for the same post on which the applicant was working only to replace the applicant is totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in the eyes of law.
12Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 4.3 Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following orders/judgments namely; (i) Judgment dated 07.11.2003 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8745/2003 in the matter of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292;(ii) Judgment dated 06.12.2000 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11785/1996 in the matter of Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Singh & Ors., reported in (2003) 10 SCC 284; (iii) Order/judgment dated 21.03.2023 of Hon‟ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 6014/2021 in the matter of Ms. Neeru Kalher & Ors. Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University & Ors., reported in 2023:DHC:2844; (iv) Order/judgment dated 30.11.2023 of Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 12126/2014, 8612, 17953 of 2020 (O&M) in the matter of Ranjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. National Institute of Technology & Ors., reported in (2023) 11 P&H CK 0053; (v) Order/judgment dated 03.11.2014 of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 1741/2014 in the matter of Narinder Singh Ahuja & Ors. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.; (vi) Order/judgment dated 05.03.2021 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2112/2020 in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., (vii) Order/judgment dated 23.01.2020 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2302/2019 in the matter of Ms. Kavita PH& Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and (viii) Orders/judgments dated 25.05.2010 and 15.09.2009 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1184/2009 with O.A. No. 1461/2009 in the matter of Mrs. Praveen Khan & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.;
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. By drawing our attention to the counter reply filed by respondents on 05.08.2025 wherein they have submitted that 13 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 Delhi Prisons vide its letter dated26.09.2019 requested Home Department, GNCTD to grant permission for engagement of 16 Law Officers on contract basis, as per appropriate rules and regulations, initially for a period of one year extendable for the period till these posts are filled on regular basis after post creation so as to enable Delhi Prisons to comply the direction of Hon'ble High Court at Delhi at the earliest. However, Hon'ble Lieutenant General granted approval for filling up the 14 vacant post of Law Officer on contract basis against the 13 sanctioned vacant posts of Legal Assistant and 01 post of Assistant Law Officer initially for a period of01 year. This tenure was later extended by Hon'ble Lieutenant General upto 31.03.2025. The details of extensions are as below:-
Sl. Period for which tenure Authority/Order vide No. extended which tenure was extended
1. 01.09.2021 to 31.08.2022 Letter dated 25.11.2021
2. 01.09.2022 to 31.03.2023 Letter dated 29.12.2022
3. 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 Letter dated 21.04.2023
4. 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 Letter dated 02.04.2024 5.2 It is further submitted that the scope of duties of Law Officers (contract) is not similar with the duties of Law Officers mentioned in Delhi Prisons Rules 2018. A mere nomenclature designating a person as Law Officer is not enough to come to conclusion that he is doing the some work as any Law Officer in regular service. Therefore, the principle of „Equal pay for equal work‟ does not apply in this case. It is submitted that there presentations of the Law Officers (Contractual) were disposed off by issuing a speaking order dated 15.05.2025.
5.3 It is submitted that the ruling of Hon‟ble Apex court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs Piara Singh & Ors., reported in 1992 AIR 1230, was in case of adhoc or temporary appointments and not in case of contractual employees. The statement in verbatim is as under:-14
Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 "an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee."
5.4 The Apex court has observed in Yogesh Mahajan Vs. Prof. R. C. Deka, Director and All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Jagjiwan Ram that adhoc service is often viewed as a substantive vacancy that can lead to regularization, whereas contract service is typically temporary and does not guarantee renewal or extension. Contractual employees do not have an inherent right to have their contracts renewed.
5.5 As a matter of fact, no equality before the law is being denied to the applicants. However, Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India envisages:
"Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.-(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State."
5.6 Delhi Prisons has published the advertisement for filling up of these posts in newspaper of four languages i.e. English, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu inviting applications from eligible candidates. The applicants who have worked upto 31.03.2025as per contract were not bared from applying and they could also apply for these posts subject to satisfying eligibility criteria. In addition, Article 311 of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure and safeguards to be followed before a government employee (member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State).
5.7 Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the order/judgment dated 28.08.2020 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 2935/2020 in the matter of Ms. Sonalika Bhargava Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
6. We have perused the pleadings available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the 15 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 parties and have also gone through the Orders/Judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsels for the respective parties carefully.
7. Office order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure-A/1) reads as under:-
"Sub: Uploading the Advertisement Notice-2025 for the post of LAW OFFICER on Contractual Basis in Delhi Prison Department, GNCTD.
With reference to the aforementioned subject, it is to inform that the Delhi Prisons Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi invites applications for filling up the 01 vacant post of Law Officer purely on Contractual basis initially for period upto 31.03.2026.
In this context, please find enclosed herewith the Advertisement Notice-2025 alongwith terms and conditions and application performa (Annexure-I) with the request to upload the same on Department Website."
8. On replacement of contractual employees, the law laid down in Piara Singh (supra) is clear that while ad-hoc employees do not have a right to regularization, they cannot be arbitrarily replaced by another set of ad-hoc employees, except through a process of regular recruitment. This principle has been followed in subsequent decisions including Parveen Khan (supra).In the present case, the respondents seek to fill the same posts by engaging another set of contractual Law Officers, without initiating any process of regular recruitment. Such action, in our considered view, is in violation to the ratio in Piara Singh (supra) and is arbitrary.
9. The reliance placed by the applicant on Piara Singh (supra) is well-founded as the Hon‟ble Supreme Court therein held that adhoc or temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of adhoc or temporary employees, and such replacement is deemed arbitrary unless justified by exceptional circumstances. For facility of reference, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
16Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 "25. Before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to say a few words concerning the issue of regularisation of adhoc/temporary employees in government service.
The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an adhoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an adhoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc/temporary employee.
Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.
Thirdly, even where an adhoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly.
An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes.
If for any reason, an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State.
The proper course would be that each States prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same way be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce 17 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be.
So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6.4.90 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work- charged employees as well as casual labour.
We must also say that the orders issued by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana providing for regularisation of adhoc/temporary employees who have put in two years/one year of service are quite generous and leave no room for any legitimate grievance by any one.
These are but a few observations which we thought it necessary to make, impelled by the facts of this case, and the spate of litigation by such employees. They are not exhaustive nor can they be understood as immutable. Each Government or authority has to devise its own criteria or principles for regularisation having regard to all the relevant circumstances, but while doing so, it should bear in mind the observations made herein.
26. So far as the employees and workmen employed by Statutory/Public Corporations are concerned, it may be noted that they have not issued any orders akin to those issued by the Punjab and Haryana Government. Even so, it is but appropriate that they adopt as far as possible, keeping the exigencies and requirements of their administration in view, the criteria and principles underlying the orders issued by their Government in the matter of regularisation and pass appropriate orders. In short, the Statutory/Public Corporations in Haryana will follow the orders contained in the letter dated 6.4.1990 referred to above, as supplemented by the orders in the Notification dated 28.2.1991, where as the Statutory/Public 18 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 Corporations in Punjab shall follow the criteria and principles stated in the affidavit of Sri G.K.Bansal, Under Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel referred to in para 22 above. These directions shall not, however, apply to these Statutory/Public Corporations functioning within these States as are under the control of the Government of India. These Corporations will do well to evolve an appropriate policy of regularisation, in the light of this judgment, if they have not already evolved one, or make their existing policy consistent with this judgment to avoid litigation.
27. For the above reasons, all the appeals are allowed and the orders under appeal are set aside. The directions given by the High Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.72/88 namely direction Nos. 1,2,3,4,6 and 8 are set aside. The only direction given herewith is the one contained in para 19. The writ petitions seeking the benefits given in the judgment under appeal are dismissed.
No costs.
H N.P.V. Appeals disposed of."
10. It is profitable to refer to the judgments on the issue involved in this case which are as follows:
10.1 Judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi dated 21.03.2023 in WP(C) No. 6014/2021 in the matter of Ms. Neeru Kalher & ors Vs Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University & ors. In paras- 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 of the judgment, the Hon‟ble High Court has held under:
"2. Facts to the extent relevant and emerging from the narrative in the writ petition are that Petitioners were appointed on contractual basis on a consolidated remuneration at the World Class Scale Centers (WCSCs), Vivek Vihar, Department of Training and Technical Education (DTTE), Government of NCT of Delhi. Respective dates of appointment of the Petitioners and the dates of renewal of their contracts are given hereunder in a tabulation form:-19
Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 S.No Name of the Initial Contract Period Renewal periods Petitioner
1. Ms. Neeru Kalher 30.10.2015 till 29.10.2016 31.10.2016 to29.10.2016 01.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 03.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 02.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 02.04.2020 to 31.03.2021
2. Mr. Rakesh Razdan 26.12.2016 till 25.12.2017 27.12.2017 t0 31.03.2018 03.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 02.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 02.04.2020 t0 31.03.2021
3. Mr. Harsh Upreti 16.05.2018 till 02.04.2019 02.04.2019 to 31.03.2019 02.04.2020 t0 31.03.2021
4. Ms. Priyanka 16.05.2018 till 31.03.2019 02.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 Chandra 02.04.2020 to 31.03.2021
5. Ms. Gurjapna Kaur 08.01.2018 till 31.03.2019 03.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 03.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 02.04.2020 to 31.03.2021
6. Ms. Seema Ghanghas 26.12.2016 till 25.12.2017 25.12.2017 to 31.03.2018 03.04.2018 t0 31.03.2019 02.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 02.04.2020 to 31.03.2021
8. CONTENTIONS ON BEAHLF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
(A) The advertisement along with General Instructions dated 08.06.2021 is per se illegal and has been published with an intent to oust the Petitioners. Petitioners were appointed on contract basis and from time to time their contracts were renewed.
Petitioners fulfill all requisite criteria and qualifications under the RRs of posts and were appointed against sanctioned posts, after following the due process of selection and not de hors the RRs.
(B) It is a settled law that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee. This law was propounded by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and Others, (1992) 4 SCC 118, and has been consistently followed in several judgments. The Division Bench of this Court in Narender Singh Ahuja and Ors. v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2243, has held that employer cannot discontinue the services of contractual, employee by replacing existing employees with another set of contractual employees. This position has been consistently reiterated in a number of judgments by the Supreme Court, this Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein contractual appointees have been protected. It is urged that the action of replacing contractual employees with contractual employees like the 20 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 Petitioners, who have continuously worked for long periods, is prohibited by the binding dictum of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Kamlesh Kumar Vyas and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
(C) Contracts of the Petitioners have been renewed from time to time and Petitioners cannot be removed without any plausible or just reason or without any cause for complaint, at the whims and fancies of the University, oblivious of the fact that Petitioners will lose their only source of livelihood. In Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Anil Kumar Singh and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 284, the Supreme Court ruled that contractual employees can only be replaced with regular employees, as and when the regular process of recruitment starts and culminates. It is an undisputed position in the present case that the impugned advertisement is for employing a fresh set of employees on contract basis and is not for regular appointments. Petitioners have clearly stated in the writ petition that they are not seeking regularization and their contracts be renewed till they are replaced with regular appointees. It is an obligation of the State under Article 39-A of the Constitution of India to ensure that all citizens have equal rights to adequate needs of livelihood. Constitution guarantees social justice to all individuals and the impugned action of the University/DTTE will inevitably result in the Petitioners being replaced by contractual employees and loss of their livelihood at this stage of life, where they have no alternate source of income.
9. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY:-
(A) The impugned Notification does not not in in any any manner prevent or preclude the Petitioners from applying to secure appointment as Master Trainers and in fact, pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court on 25.06.2021, they have applied and their results have been kept in a sealed cover.
(B) Contention of the Petitioners that they are being replaced by another set of contractual employees, is factually incorrect and a misconception. University has invited applications from the public at large and every application will be considered on its own merit to select most suitable persons and there is no intent to oust the Petitioners, who will be given an equal chance to compete with other applicants. Article 14 of the Constitution demands that there is an open advertisement giving equal chance to all those who apply and participate in a selection process and this would enable the University to get the best talent as Master Trainers.
(C) There cannot be any debate on the proposition that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of 21 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 contractual employees, but this is not the situation in the present case as contracts of Petitioners have expired and in between, the University was incorporated in the year 2019. Insofar as reliance on the judgment in Narender Singh Ahuja (supra) is concerned, no doubt, the Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 26.03.2015, however, question of law was kept open. It is a settled law that wherein a lis the question of law is kept open by the Supreme Court, the underlying judgment losses its precedential value. The judgment in Kamlesh Kumar Vyas (supra) has been wrongly relied upon by the Petitioners as the said judgment was passed on a statement/concession by the counsel for the Respondent therein and cannot be considered as a binding judgment under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as reliance on Uma Devi (supra) is concerned, the same is misplaced, since far from helping the case of the Petitioners, it is an authority for the proposition that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker, he is aware of the consequences of the nature of appointment and cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for confirmation in the post. It was further observed that in such a case, it cannot be held that State has held out any promise while engaging these persons, either to continue them or make them permanent. None of the other judgments also help the Petitioners for the same reason.
(D) While the petition is drafted in a manner that it gives an impression that Petitioners are not seeking regularization but only renewal of the contracts, but the real motivation is to seek regularization and it is a settled law that law does not permit a person, to do indirectly something that cannot be done directly. The contractual appointments of the Petitioners have come to an end by afflux of time and any further direction to renew the contracts by the Court would be to enforce the contract of service, which cannot be be done by a writ Court and/or would amount to granting regularization, which would be in the teeth of the several judgments of the of the Supreme Court, including the celebrated judgment of Uma Devi (supra).
(E) Reliance is placed by the Petitioners on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh (supra), overlooking the fact that in the judgment itself, the Supreme Court has observed that each Government and Authority has to devise its own criteria or principle for regularization having regard to all relevant circumstances and no case can be the same. In State of Jharkhand and Another v. Harihar Yadav and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 114, the obiter observations of the Supreme Court are not dispositive of the questions of law arising in the present writ petition. The present case is a different case on facts as, here the contractual employees are not being replaced nor were the Petitioners appointed for a project, which is continuing as are the 22 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 facts in the cases where the Courts have passed directions not to replace one contractual employee with the other.
(F) Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Shri Bhoop Singh & Ors. v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr., W.P. (C) Nos. 6483/2014 and 4484/2014, decided on 19.05.2015, wherein this Court declined to grant relief to the Petitioners who were appointed as security guards by North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited, for taking them back into service and for quashing the orders of the Respondent declining to extend their contractual employments. Court declined relief on the ground that Petitioners were not employed against a project and they were employed under a fixed term, which contracts had come to an end by afflux of time Court held that this was not the case where one set of contractual employees were being replaced by another set of employees and neither was it the case where it was an appointment for a project and the project was continuing. Judgment in the case of Narender Singh Ahuja (supra) is sought to be distinguished on the same argument.
(G) Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Satish Joshi, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3161, for the proposition that no employee has a vested right to continue in employment, if the contract of employment has come to an end by afflux of time and cannot urge that his services are liable to be continued de hors the contract which he had voluntarily signed.
11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their rival contentions.
12. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that the Petitioners were appointed as Master Trainers on contractual basis between 2015 to 2018 and their contracts were renewed from time to time, without any break. The appointments were on consolidated remuneration at the WCSCs. It is equally undisputed that 20.19 Act came to be notified on 26.05.2020 and DTTE vide Notification dated 20.09.2021 published the approval granted by the GNETD for integration of 6 WCSCs into the University for academic and certification purposes. Petitioners have also put forth that the said Notification categorically provided that 58 posts existing in the 6 WCSCs were en-masse shifted to the University and significantly this, Notification was published by DTTE under the aegis of which the University functions, both administratively and financially This fact is also fortified by the Notice dated 28.01.2021 issued by DEFE notifying the integration of WCSCs into the University including that of the movable assets as also the 58 sanctioned posts, on existing terms and conditions and at the initial stages, all members of WCSCs including the Petitioners were invited to a joint meeting.
23Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 Relevant paras of the Notification dated 20.01.2021 and the Notice dated 28.01.2021 are as follows:-
"NOTIFICATION 20TH JANURARY 2021 F.1(235)/Inclusion of WCSC/DSEU/SB/DTTE/2020/104: In exercise of powers conferred under Clause (xix) of Section 6 of the Delhi Skill Entrepreneurship University Act, 2019 (Delhi Act 04 of 2020), the Government of NCT of Delhi vide Cabinet decision No. 2899 dated 13/11/2020 has approved the proposal for integration of six World Class Skill Centres as per list I and all upcoming World Class Skill Centers (excluding those which are being constructed on the campus of other Universities) as per list 2 into Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University for all academic and certification purposes. The Cabinet has also decided to transfer all moveable assets of the existing and the upcoming World Class Skill Centres to the DSEU on as is where is basis.
Further, with prior of Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi, it has been decided to transfer 58 posts of existing 6 World Class Skill Centres to the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University on the existing terms and conditions. The issue regarding transfer of land and building of World Class Skill Centres to DSEU will be finalized subsequently."
"File No. 1(20/DSEU/Misc./2021) Date: 28.01.2021 NOTICE The Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (DSEU) came into existence on 15th August 2020 vide Notification dated 14.08.2020.
On 20th January, 2021, based on Cabinet Decision No. 2899 dated 13/11/2020 the Director (ITE), vide, notification No. F.1(235) Inclusion of WCSC/DSEU/SB/DITE/2020/104 notified the integration of six World Class Skill Centers and all upcoming World Class Skill Centres (excluding those which are being constructed on the campus of other Universities into the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University for all academic and certification purposes, including moveable assets and existing terms and conditions sets and 58 sanctioned posts on existing terms and conditions.
The Hon'ble Vice Chancellor wishes to welcome all members and friends of the University for a Joint meeting at 11.30AM followed by a lunch on 02 February 2021 at Integrated Institute of Technology 1.30AM followed by Complex, Sector 9. Dwarka Delhi 24 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 All members of World Class Skill Centres and Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University are requested to join the meeting as per the Schedule.
15. Indisputably, the impugned advertisement dated 08.06.2021 was published for inviting applications, for contractual employments in various disciplines in the post of Masters Trainers. It is not the case of the Respondents that the advertisement is for making regular appointments. Therefore, by virtue of this advertisement, the Respondents are seeking to fill the post of Master Trainers on 'contract' basis. The law on this issue is far too well-settled to even call for a discussion or debate In Piara Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee.
46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.
xxxx
50. The proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service as the case may be.
16. In Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2007) 13 SCC 292, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed.25
Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appointments are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly."
17. In Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Another'. Director General of Police, Assam and Others, (2009) 6-SCC 611, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"17. When the ad hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad hoc appointments under schemes are normally coterminous with the scheme (subject of course to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularisation nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman emplayed after undergoing the selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and re-engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments.
18. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminous with the Scheme. The Circular dated 17-3-1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be quashed."
18. A similar issue came up before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Malwinder Singh Mali v. Punjabi University, Patiala (through its Registrar), 1999 SCC OnLine P&H 1181, where the Petitioner was appointed as a Public Relations Officer on ad-hoc basis for six months or till the filling up of the post on regular 26 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 basis, whichever was earlier. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued for the post of Public Relations Officer along with other posts for filling up the post on regular basis. Petitioner also applied for the post and in the meantime, the terms of ad-hoc appointment of the Petitioner was extended by a period of six months. Petitioner had some grievance with the advertisement regarding the qualifications, which according to him, were tailor made to suit certain candidates. Petitioner also urged that his ad-hoc appointment should continue till regular appointment was made and the order by which his services were terminated be quashed. The High Court allowed the writ petition partly and the action of the University in curtailing the extension of the term was set aside with a direction to allow the Petitioner to continue on ad-hoc/temporary basis till the regular selection was made to the post of Public Relations Officer. Relevant part is as under:-
"6. The other prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing the order by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and the term of his extension curtailed till 31 December 1998. We find merit in this grievance of the petitioner. It has time and again been laid down by this Court that the services of an adhoc/temporary employee can be terminated only on account of unsatisfactory work or if the post is not available or when a regularly selected candidate becomes available for appointment. The services of an ad hoc employee cannot be terminated without any reason when the post continues to exist and the University itself has readvertised the same to fill it up on regular basis. An ad hoc employee cannot be allowed to be replaced by another ad hoc employee or by some one on officiating basis as that would smack of arbitrariness. Some good reason has to be stated for terminating the services of ad hoc temporary employee The University being a statutory body is a "State" for purposes of Art. 12 of the Constitution and every action of it should be guided by public interest and if it is shown that the exercise of power arbitrary, unhurt or unfair, the some will have to be struck down. We see no reason why the service of the petitioner should have been terminated when the post war available and the University having granted extension to hit tenure had to curtail the same when the Syndicate decided in the same very meeting that the post be filled up and it constituted a selection committee for the purpose. In the circumstances, the petitioner has a right to continue as a Public Relations Officer on ad hoc temporary basis till the University makes a regular selection Since the services of the petitioner were terminated without assigning any valid reason the same is held to be illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed. The view that we have taken finds support from the judgments of this Court in the Rajni Bala case (vide supra), and Balwan Singh case (vide supra)."
19. In Pradeep Navinbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 15846, the High Court was ceased of 27 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 a controversy raised by the Petitioners that they were appointed for a period of 11 months on contractual/ad-hoc-basis and therefore, till such time the regularly selected candidates are available, their services ought not to be terminated by other Assistant Professors/Lecturers on contractual/ad-hoc basis on the same terms and conditions. Challenge was also made to a Wesh advertisement issued by the State for appointment of ad hoc Assistant Professors/Lecturers for a period of 11 months. It is also urged that Petitioners were holding requisite qualifications and there was no justification for the State Government to issue fresh advertisement for recruiting ad-hoc or contractual appointees against the posts occupied by the Petitioners. Relevant paras of the judgment are as follows:-
"33. This Court has carefully perused the judgments in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2) (Supra.) and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (Supra.) as well as the judgment in Official Liquidator v Dayanand (Supra.) and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casterihe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.). In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataku v. Umadevi (2) (Supra), a reference was made se a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court regarding the issue whether employees appointed by the State or as Instrumentalities on temporary or casual bosis, or on daily wage, have a right to approach the High Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing that they may be made pernement or absorbed in the ports on which they are working. In paragraph 26 of Secretary, State of Karnataka v Umadevi (3) (Spa), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court did not approve of the principles of law laid down in paragraph 50 of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (Supra), to the extent that direction send to the States to prepare a scheme for regularization of the temporary or casual or daily wage workers. The reference to the Constitution Bench wax regarding regularisation of such employees and to that extent the principles of law laid down in State of Haryana v Piara Singh (Supra), have been overruled by Secretary, State of Karnataka v Umadevi (3) (Supra). In paragraph 50 regarding touching upon the regularization of temporary/casual workers and daily wagers have been averruled However, the principle of law enunciated in the judgment of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (Supra.), that adhoc employees should not be replaced by another adhoc employees has not been overruled. The judgment of State of Haryana. Piara Singh (Supra), as a whole, has not been overruled and the principles of law laid down to the effect that adhoc employees should not be replaced by other adhoc employees still holds good.
xxxx xxxx xxx
36. The principles settled in the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (Supra), are those pertaining to regularization of temporary/casual/daily wage workers.28
Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 Having regard to the above, this Court is inclined to agree with the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that ime principle of law laid down in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (Supra), that adhoc employees ought not to be replaced by another set of adhoc employees, but only by regularly selected candidates, has not been diluted and still holds good.
xxxx xxxx xxx
38. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the GPSC that the requisition for filling up regular posts has come from the State Government on 07.08.2013. The procedure for regular recruitment is still underway and, as per the submissions made by Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned Advocate for the GPSC, it may take another 10 to 12 months to complete the same. It may be true that the petitioners do not have any permanent right to the posts that they are occupying on adhoc basis; however, it is difficult to understand what rational purpose would be served in terminating the services of the petitioners and engaging fresh adhoc persons for eleven months. Such action would be in contradiction to the principle of law laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (Supra.) as quoted in the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (Supra). Moreover, it would lead to multifarious litigation, as is already the case.
39. As has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners, the challenge in the present petitions is limited only to the extent of the termination of the services of the petitioner to make way for another set of adhoc employees. It does not extend to those Assistant Professors/Lecturers, who may have been appointed in the Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.08.2013, or to any other vacant posts.
40. Accordingly, as a cumulative effect of the above discussion and for reasons stated hereinabove, and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 07.09.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986/2010 and connected matters, the petitions are partly allowed to the extent that the services of the petitioners as Assistant Professors/Lecturers on temporary/contractual basis in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics shall not be terminated, till regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available. It is clarified that this judgment shall not confer any right upon the petitioners to the posts on which they are working, after the regularly selected candidates through the GPSC are available."
21. Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on several judgments, of this Court and the Central Administrative Tribunals, wherein reliefs have been granted to contractual employees, following the principle elucidated by the Supreme Court in Piara Singh (supra), however, this Court does not find the necessity to refer 29 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 to all of them and burden this judgment as the principle is well settled in Piara Singh (supra). Relevant would it be to refer to the judgment judgment in Harihar Yadav (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that both States and Corporations have conveniently ostracized the concept of 'model employer' and that it would not be wrong to say that they have done so with pacific calmness, sans vision, shorn of responsibility and oblivious of their role in such a situation. Neither have the States nor the Corporations thought even for a moment of the livelihood of these employees. It is imperative for justice that a contractual employee be not replaced by another contractual employee leading the former in a despicable and abandoned state.
22. The crucial fact that needs to be highlighted in the present case is that at the time when the Petitioners came to be appointed, no regularly selected candidates were available and/or appointed to the post of Master Trainer and additionally, even today the advertisement impugned herein is not for appointment on regular basis and significantly, Respondents through the impugned advertisement seek appointment of Master Trainers only on contract basis. Therefore, it is not the case where Respondents have decided to replace the Petitioners with regular set of employees and the advertisement clearly reflects that it is to replace Petitioners with another set of contractual employees on the same terms and conditions as the Petitioners and concerned posts have been transferred en-masse from the WCSCs to the University. While there cannot be a quarrel with the proposition that being contractual employees, Petitioners cannot claim a permanent right to the posts and as and when regular appointment process is initiated, at best, they would be entitled to a right to apply and consideration as per law, given that they are otherwise eligible. Petitioners have averred at several places in the writ petition that they are not seeking regularization but only seek to continue till they are replaced by regular appointees and this position was reiterated by counsel for the Petitioners during the course of hearing. The scope of the present writ petition is, therefore, in a narrow compass as noted above, as to whether their services can be replaced by another set of contract employees, which the Respondents seek to do through the impugned advertisement and the answer can only be an emphatic 'No'. In view of the binding dictum of the Supreme ctum of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh (supra), in my view, the action of the Respondents to replace the Petitioners is totally untenable and unsustainable in law.
23. Much was argued by counsel for the Respondents that the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) supports the case of the Respondents and rules against the contentions of the Petitioners. This contention, in my view, merits rejection. The principle settled in the decision of Uma Devi (supra) was primarily with respect to regularization of temporary/casual/daily wager employees and does not deal with the principle of law settled by 30 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 the Supreme Court in Piara Singh (supra) i.e. contract/ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of contract/ad-hoc employees but only by regularly selected candidates and this principle has not been diluted in Uma Devi (supra) or thus far by any other judgment of the Supreme Court or a Bench of equal or larger strength and still holds good. Counsel for the Respondents has tried to distinguish the judgment in the Narender Singh Ahuja (supra) of the Division Bench of this Court by urging that the judgment was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court and while the SLP was dismissed in limine, the question of law was left open and therefore, it is no longer open for the Petitioners to rely on the judgment which has lost its precedential välue. The argument does not any way inure to the advantage of the Respondents since the case of the Petitioners is based on the binding dictum of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh (supra) and therefore, even if the question of law is kept open, Respondents have been unable to show any judgment of the Supreme Court which lays the law contrary to the one propounded in Piara Singh (supra) In Vidyavardhaka Sangha (supra), the Supreme Court has held that appointments made for a specified period of time come to an end by afflux of time and persons holding the posts cannot have any right to continue. The question that arises in the present petition of replacement of a contract employee with another contract employee was not the issue arising for consideration in the said case and the judgment is thus distinguishable on the facts. The judgment in Shri Bhoop Singh (supra) was on a different conspectus of facts. In the said case, the Petitioners were sought to be replaced by outsourcing the work of security to an outside agency and the Court held that while there is no dispute to the proposition of law that one set of contract employees cannot be replaced by another set of contract employees, however, it is different where the employer changes the method of security by giving the responsibility to a security agency specialized in the field and where the terms of engagement of the new employees are wholly different. A bare reading of the facts in Satish Jeshi (supra) shows that the question for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court was whether the Respondent therein had a vested right in continuing with his employment once the contract came to an end by afflux of time and the issue that arises in the present case was not even remotely the question before the Division Bench i.e. replacement of a contract employee by another contract employee.
24. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioners shall be re- engaged by the Respondents by renewing their contracts and their services shall not be dispensed with till regularly selected candidates join the posts in question. It is made clear that this judgment does not confer any rights upon the Petitioners to continue after the regularly selected candidates are appointed and nor should the observations of the Court be construed to 31 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 mean or connote that the Court has conferred the status of regular employees on the Petitioners."
10.2 Judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court in Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 12126 of 2014 in the matter of Ranjeet Singh and others Vs. National Institute of Technology and others. Paras 13 and 14 of the judgment reads as under:
"13. The petitioners except petitioners No.4 and 7 are admittedly working with respondent-Institute. It is undisputed that work is available and petitioners are working on contract basis. The petitioners are not claiming regularisation or pay scale at par with permanent or regular employees. The limited prayer of the petitioners is that they may be permitted to continue till appointment of regular employees.
14. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 2007(13) SCC 292, order dated 20.09.2017 passed by this Court in CWP No.2822 of 2016 titled as "Omveer and others vs. State of Haryana and others, order dated 07.01.2016 passed by this Court in CWP No.6358 of 2014 titled as "Ravinder Kumar and others. vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and other"
and a Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Narinder Singh Ahuja and others vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family, 2014 SCC Online Del 2243, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue till they are replaced by regular employees or the Respondent-Institute finds misconduct on the part of the petitioners or the respondent concludes that in view of changed circumstances, there is no work which can be assigned to the petitioners."
10.3 Judgment of this Tribunal dated 15.02.2021 in OA No. 2112 of 2020 in the matter of Ashok Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Paras 07, 13, 15 to 17 of the judgment reads as under:
"7. Shri Luthra, further submits that replacement of one set of contractual employees with another set of 5 OA No-2112 of 2020 such employees is against the settled principles of law, as a contractual employee can only be replaced/substituted by regularly selected candidate and the respondents can disengage the services of the applicants only when there is no work available against which the applicants have been engaged and have been continuing for around six years and/or when the posts against which the applicants have been 32 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 engaged are filled by the respondents by regular selection in accordance with the relevant rules. To strengthen his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 3.11.2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1741/2014, titled Narinder Singh Ahuja and others vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others (Annexure A/6). He further submits that the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in as much as SLP (Civil) No.8706/2015 filed by the Union of India against the same has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 27.3.2015 (Annexure A/7). He has 6 OA No-2112 of 2020 further placed reliance upon the Order/Judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 12.8.2016 in OA No.2149/2016, titled Ms. Shikha Jain and others vs. Union of India and another (Annexure A/8). The said Order/Judgment of this Tribunal has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Judgment dated 27.7.2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5073/2017 (Annexure A/9). Further reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicants on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others, reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118, (Annexure A/10). Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants have been performing their duties to the entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned.
13. The said judgment dated 3.11.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Narinder Singh Ahuja's case (supra) was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8706/2018 vide Order/Judgment dated 27.3.2015 (Annexure A/7). In Shikha Jain's case (supra), the applicants, eight in numbers, who had been working as Programme Assistant on contract basis in the National Aids Control Organization of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, have approached this Tribunal vide OA No.2149/2016. The grievance of the applicants therein was that the respondents have not been extending their respective contract beyond 30.6.2016 mainly on the ground that the respondents 16 OA No-2112 of 2020 have decided to hire the support staff from the domestic budgetary support through an outsource agency. After considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Narinder Singh Ahuja's case (supra), this Tribunal held in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the Order/judgment dated 12.8.2016 (Annexure A/8) as under:-
"9. Admittedly, it is not the case of the respondents that there is no work available after 30.06.2016. On the 33 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 other hand, it is specifically stated that they will hire the support staff through an outsourced agency. That means that the respondents are intending to replace the applicants, who are working on contract basis, for the last few years, with another set of contract employees, may be, through outsourced agencies. The said action of replacing one set of contract employees with another set of contract employees is clearly against to the settled principles of law. Even the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court is to the same effect."
"12. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons the OA is partly allowed and accordingly, the respondents are directed to continue the applicants on the same terms and conditions as long as there is work or till the vacancies are filled up on regular basis. No order as to costs."
15. From the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Piara Singh's case (supra) and that by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Narinder Singh Ahuja's 19 OA No-2112 of 2020 case (supra) and Shikha Jain's case (supra), it is evident that replacement of a contract employee(s) by fresher(s), junior(s) or even a staff from an outsource agency is prohibited. No statutory provision has been brought to our notice by the respondents, which takes away the right of preferential treatment to the daily wager or contractual employees, who are already engaged and are working for continuation on contract to junior(s), fresher(s) or the person(s) to be engaged through outsourcing agency to be taken away.
16. In view of the facts as noted hereinabove and law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered view that action of the respondents of not continuing the engagement of the applicants as Driver on contract basis and their action of replacing them by another set of contractual employees through outsourcing is not tenable in the eyes of law.
17. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the present OA is partly allowed and the respondents are 20 OA No-2112 of 2020 directed to continue the applicants on the same terms and conditions of on contract basis as long as there is work available with the respondents and/or till the vacancies are filled up on regular basis. The respondents are further directed to issue consequential order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs."
34Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 10.4 Judgment of this Tribunal dated 23.01.2020 in OA No. 2302 of 2019 in the matter of Kavita Vs. Govt. of Nctd.
Paras 14 and 15 of the judgment reads as under:
" 14. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that though the applicants were engaged as per the offer of appointment letters under the alleged scheme and policy referred to above, on part time hourly basis and though the respondents have submitted that the applicants can work in the remaining time after 32 hours per week anywhere else, but however, in view of the monthly biometric attendance sheet shown to us, it is clear that the applicants are actually working regularly for 7 to 9 hours a day and moreover as per paras 6 &
11 of the terms and condition of offer of appointment extracted above, their original certificates were kept with the respondents as such practically they are not allowed to work for any other employer, we are of the view that engagements of the applicants are nothing but a new device of engagement to deprive the applicants the status of contract engagement so as to deny them the benefit of even continuity of engagement, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases right from 1992 in the above said Piara Singh's case (supra) and in Uma Devi's case (supra) which has been emphatically stated in the above extracted portion of the judgment in Sheo Narain case (supra), until regular appointments are made to the said posts and, therefore, the action of the respondents including the above extracted scheme and policy are against the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases and also against the principles underlying Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India as stated in the above said case of Sheo Narain and are in contravention of the duty enjoined on the respondent-state under Article 37 read with Article 39 (d) and (e) of the Constitution of India and also in view of the experience gained by the applicants for having worked with the respondents from the academic year 2017-2018, the respondents are bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and extracted above to continue the applicants until the respondents make regular appointments as per Recruitment Rules.
15. Accordingly the OA is partly allowed with a direction to the respondents to continue the engagement of applicants in the posts kept vacant in view of the interim order dated 22.11.2019 until the making of regular appointments as per Recruitment Rules. No order as to costs."
35Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 10.5 Judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi dated 03.11.2014 in WP(C) No. 1741/2014 in the matter of Narinder Singh Ahuja and ors. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health. Paras 15 to 17 of the judgment reads as under:
"15. In the opinion of this Court, since the respondents nowhere dispute that there is need for the performance of the work that the petitioners were discharging all along and there is also no dispute that the project and funding (for the project) would continue till 2017, the decision to discontinue the petitioners' engagement is based only on the policy to outsource the contractual employment to a third party. The petitioners are not insisting on regularization, given the nature of the employment or engagement, which is project based. However apart from the decision to "outsource" engagement, of contract employment to a third agency, there is no rationale to discontinue the petitioners contracts. The justification that the employees engaged through the contractor are paid lower wages is arbitrary, because the "outsourced" or outsourcing agency would have to be paid its service charges. The lower wages paid, therefore, is, in effect, because of the charges/fees paid to the contractor/outsourced agency. The facts of this case clearly reveal that even though the work is to be performed by contractual employees, the reason for discontinuance of the petitioners' employment is not their replacement with regular appointees, but instead, with another set of contractual employees. The state/respondents cannot, in the circumstances of this case, say that discontinuance of such employment cannot be gone into by the Court because the petitioners were aware that their contracts ended.
W.P.(C) 1741/2014 Page 15
16. For the above reasons, this court is of opinion that the CAT erred in law, in holding that the petitioners could not complain against the discontinuance of their contractual employment. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents to continue the petitioners in contractual employment on annual renewal basis, till the currency of the RNTCP scheme/project in 2017. An appropriate consequential order shall be issued by the respondents within eight weeks from today.
17. The impugned order of the CAT is accordingly set aside, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the above directions."36
Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 10.6 Judgment of this Tribunal dated 25.03.2010 in OA No. 1184 of 2009 in the matter of Praveen Khan Vs. Govt. of NCT .
Para 5 of the judgment reads as under:
"5. The issue is thus well settled on the basis of the judicial precedents cited above that a set a contractual employees shall not be replaced by another set of contractual employees except if the contractual employees are not working satisfactorily. The reference is thus answered. The judgement in Ruchi Singh (supra) is overruled to this extent. The Original Applications are remitted to the DB for further adjudication 10.7 Judgment of this Tribunal dated 15.09.2009 in OA No. 1184 of 2009 in the matter of Praveen Khan Vs. Govt. of NCT Paras 23 and 24 of the judgment reads as under:
"23. Similarly in the case of Amit Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi also, the question whether one set of contractual employees could have been replaced by another set of contractual employees has not been dealt with, therefore, that judgment is distinguishable.
24. In view of above, let this matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chairman on administrative side for constituting a Full Bench to decide the issue authoritatively whether one set of contractual employees can be replaced by others when process for regular selection has already been initiated."
10.8 Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 07.09.2003 in the matter of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others in Civil Appeal No. 8745/2003. Para 3 of the judgment reads as under:
"3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more 37 Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appointments are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly."
10.9 Judgment of the the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decided on 06.12.2000 in the matter of Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan & ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 11785/1996. Paras 1 and 2 of the judgment reads as under:
"1. The employer Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is in appeal against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 782 of 1995 which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench. The respondents had been appointed on contractual basis and just before the expiry of the contractual period, they approached the High Court with the prayer that their services should not be terminated until the posts are filled up by a process of regular recruitment. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 6-4- 1995 disposed of the writ petition following an earlier judgment of be allowed to continue till the posts are filled up by process of regular recruitment, and those petitioners should be allowed to compete with other candidates if they apply for selection and if they are otherwise not disqualified. The High Court also took additional care by indicating that the writ petitioners cannot claim any additional advantage by virtue of their experience by working for the contractual period. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity with the said judgment of the High Court to be interfered with by this Court. The expression "if they are otherwise not disqualified" would obviously mean they must have the necessary qualifications, as required, under the relevant rules for being appointed as a teacher and then they have to compete along with others for adjudication of their merit for being appointed. The apprehension of the employer that the impugned judgment directs condonation of the age is wholly unfounded.
2. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any justification for interference with the direction given by the High Court. Civil appeals are accordingly dismissed."38
Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025
11. On equal pay for equal work, the applicants are discharging duties similar to those of regular Law Officers. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held that temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees cannot be paid less than the minimum of the pay scale of regular employees, subject to differences in qualifications and recruitment process.
12. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Courts and this Tribunal in the judgments referred above, we hold that the applicants are entitled to wages at least equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post of Law Officer in Delhi Prisons. However, parity in allowances such as LTC, gratuity, etc., which are service benefits attached to regular employment, cannot be extended in absence of statutory rules or scheme.
13. On claim for service benefits, while applicants‟ grievance about denial of leave, HRA, EPF etc. is understandable, grant of such benefits is a matter of policy. In Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Hon‟bleSupreme Court cautioned against judicial directions amounting to creation of service conditions for contractual staff. Therefore, beyond wages at par with regulars, applicants cannot claim parity in other allowances. However, statutory benefits like EPF and ESI, if applicable under law, must be extended.
14. On legality of recruitment notice, in view of our finding, the advertisement seeking to engage another set of contractual Law Officers to replace the applicants cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. The respondents, however, remain at liberty to initiate a process for regular recruitment under applicable rules.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the O.A. is partly allowed with the following directions:-
39Item No. 21/C-II OA No. 1549/2025 i. The recruitment notice issued by the respondents of OIC-
Estt. Branch-PHQ upload memo no. F.18
(26)/Estt./PHQ/2025/ CD No. 3799530/2947 dated
25.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) proposing to engage fresh contractual Law Officers is quashed.
ii. The applicants shall not be replaced by another set of contractual appointees. However, respondents are at liberty to initiate regular recruitment, in which case applicants shall also be free to apply subject to eligibility. iii. The applicants shall be entitled to wages equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of regular Law Officers from the date of joining the services of the respondents, but shall not be entitled to parity in allowances such as LTC, gratuity, etc., except statutory benefits like EPF/ESI wherever applicable.
iv. The respondents shall comply with these directions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. Pending MA (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
17. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/ks