Delhi High Court - Orders
India Tourism Development Corporation ... vs Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union on 13 February, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~8 (SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2638/2018
INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Sumitra Choudhary, Mr. MK Raghav
Raman, Ms. Nitya Sharma, Ms.
Jasmine Sheikh & Mr. Nishant Goyal,
Advs. (8800556098)
versus
ASHOK HOTEL MAZDOOR JANTA UNION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary, Mr.
Prabhat K Mishra, Ms. Shweta Rajput,
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Chouhan and
Ratan Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 13.02.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL.78591/2025 CM APPL. 78592/2025 in W.P.(C) 2638/2018
2. These are two applications for modification filed by Mr. Ratan Kumar and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Chauhan, seeking modification of the order dated 21st September, 2021.
3. It is their case that vide order dated 21st September, 2021, this Court had directed that contractual employees who are currently rendering services would not be terminated until they attain the age of superannuation. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
"CM APPLs.17090/2020 & 21944/2020 (for directions)
6. These are two applications seeking maintenance of status W.P.(C) 2638/2018 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/02/2026 at 20:36:42 quo and seeking directions that the Management ought not to interfere with the discharge of duty of the Workmen. Vide the order of this Court dated 30th July, 2020 it is already directed as under:
"7. A perusal of the notice dated 13th July, 2020 and award dated 31st August, 2017 shows that there is a complete mismatch between the two. The contractor is continuing to proceed on the basis that the employees are employees of the contractor and not of ITDC, however, the award had clearly declared that the employees are the employees of ITDC. Owing to the submission that there is an LPA pending and the regularisation policy of ITDC has been stayed, at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the employees are entitled to limited interim relief to the extent that if any new contractor is engaged by ITDC the services of the Respondent-employees shall not be terminated. The Respondent-employees would be allowed to perform the same duties as they are currently performing. Ordered accordingly. The new contractor shall be notified by ITDC of today's order in order to ensure compliance."
7. In view of the above order, it is directed that the employees, who are working through contractor, shall not be terminated, even if a new contractor is engaged by Petitioner/ITDC (hereinafter "ITDC"). They shall be allowed to render the services that they are currently rendering. However, this protection would extend only to those employees, who have not attained the superannuation age of 58 years. 8. These applications are disposed of in these terms."
W.P.(C) 2638/2018 Page 2 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/02/2026 at 20:36:42
4. The stand of both the applicants is that the age of superannuation vide office order bearing Ref. No. PWC-2(4)/04/25 dated 29th August, 2025, has been extended to 60 years in respect of all employees. Hence, modification of the order of this Court is sought to allow the applicants to work till the age of 60 years.
5. Admittedly, the date of birth of Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Chauhan is 12th October, 1967, which would make him entitled to claim benefit of the said office order. Insofar as Mr. Ratan Kumar is concerned, his date of birth is 25th August, 1967. However, his retirement would be with effect from 31st August, 2025 and the office order was issued prior to his retirement i.e., on 29th August, 2025. In view thereof, benefit of the said office order would also extend to Mr. Ratan Kumar.
6. This Court takes on record the objection of Mr. Ravi Sikri, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the Management that the Applicants are contractual employees, and hence, did not deserve to continue in service.
7. Vide order dated 21st September, 2021, this issue has been considered and the Court has already directed that the contractual employees would not be terminated.
8. In view thereof, the benefit of the office order dated 29th August, 2025 shall be given to both Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Chauhan and Mr. Ratan Kumar.
9. It is clarified that this order would be applicable only to these two Applicants.
10. Applications are disposed of in the above terms.
W.P.(C) 2638/2018 Page 3 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/02/2026 at 20:36:42 W.P.(C) 2638/2018
11. List on date already fixed i.e., 27th February, 2026 before Single Bench.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
FEBRUARY 13, 2026 dj/ss W.P.(C) 2638/2018 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/02/2026 at 20:36:42