Anil Kumar Vs Union of India, through Secretary — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anil Kumar Vs Union of India, through Secretary — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (EDCIL) to consider the question of regularisation and take a decision within 8 weeks; petitioner not to be terminated until a reasoned decision is communicated; pending CM application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, serving as Junior Project Assistant (Messenger) in EDCIL on contract for more than 10 years, is entitled to regularisation of his services.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (EDCIL) shall consider the question of regularisation and take a decision within 8 weeks.

Ratio / Principle

Until a reasoned decision on regularisation is communicated to the petitioner, his services will not be terminated (Senior Counsel's submission taken on record by the Court).

Key takeaways

The pending application (CM APPL. 56379/2025) also stands disposed of.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prateek Jalan, J.), order dated 15.09.2025 in W.P.(C) 13733/2025 & CM APPL. 56379/2025: Anil Kumar, admittedly serving as a contractual Junior Project Assistant (Messenger) in EDCIL India Ltd. for more than ten years, sought regularisation. His counsel relied on Supreme Court decisions — Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India [(2024) 9 SCC 327], Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826], Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025 SCC OnLine SC 221], and Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. [Civil Appeal 8558/2018, decided on 19.08.2025]. Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pointed to the order dated 25.08.2025 in the similar W.P.(C) 12898/2025 (where the petition was directed to be treated as a representation), and stated that the petitioner's contractual services were due to expire on 30.09.2025 and would not be terminated until a decision was taken. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the question of regularisation and take a decision within eight weeks, recording that the petitioner will not be terminated until a reasoned decision is communicated. The pending application was likewise disposed of.

$~19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 13733/2025 & CM APPL. 56379/2025

ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. T.N. Tripathi, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Mr. Amit Dutta and Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advs. for UOI Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shantanu Shukla, Mr. Anand Singh and Mr. Archit Gautam, Advs. for R-2 and R-3.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R % 15.09.2025

The petitioner seeks regularisation in the services of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – EDCIL India Ltd. [“EDCIL”]. He claims to have been serving as Junior Project Assistant (Messenger) in EDCIL for more than 10 years

Although the petitioner’s service is admittedly contractual, Mr. T.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, including Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors . [(2024) 9 SCC 327]; Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826]; Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam,

W.P.(C) 13733/2025

Page 1 of 2

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 17/09/2025 at 14:29:57

Ghaziabad [2025 SCC OnLine SC 221], and Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. [Civil Appeal 8558/2018, decided on 19.08.2025], to submit that the petitioner is entitled to regularisation.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned Senior Counsel, appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and submits that in a similar case [W.P.(C) 12898/2025], the Court by order dated 25.08.2025 directed the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation. He, therefore, urges the Court to pass a similar order in the present case.

Mr. Kaushik further submits that the petitioner’s contractual services are due to expire on 30.09.2025. He states, however, that until a decision is taken, the services of the petitioner will not be terminated. 5. In view of the aforesaid statements, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the question of regularisation will be considered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and a decision be taken within a period of 8 weeks from today. Until a reasoned decision is communicated to the petitioner, Mr. Kaushik’s submission is taken on record that the petitioner will not be terminated.

The pending application also stands disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J

SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 ‘pv/JM’/

W.P.(C) 13733/2025

Page 2 of 2

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 17/09/2025 at 14:29:57