Disposed¶33

Poonam Sharma and Ors. v. M/S a 1SECURITY Service and Ors.

Delhi HC9 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2936/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ petition; contractual employees; security services contractor; Rohini Courts / Rohini District Court; blank documents; fabricated resignation letters; false loan agreements; forcible opening of bank accounts; misappropriation of salaries; Provident Fund contributions; arbitrary termination without notice; intimidation of employees; complaint dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) with reminder 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-8); District Judge Rohini North-West; petition disposed of; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav J.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the petitioner's complaint dated 13.01.2025 be taken to its logical conclusion by the concerned District Judge with due expedition. ¶33

Poonam Sharma and Ors. Vs M/S a 1SECURITY Service and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction that the petitioner's complaint dated 13.01.2025 be taken to its logical conclusion by the concerned District Judge with due expedition.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Grievance of alleged malpractices by respondent No. 1 (the private contractor appointed pursuant to a tender to provide security services at Rohini District Court) against contractual employees, including forcing signatures on blank documents later used to fabricate resignation letters and false loan agreements, forcibly opening bank accounts and misappropriating salaries, failure to deposit deducted Provident Fund contributions, terminations without notice or justification, and intimidation of employees seeking legal remedies, violating their fundamental and statutory rights. +1 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that no order appears to have been passed by the concerned District Judge, Rohini Court, North-West District on the petitioner's complaint dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) read with reminder dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-8), which therefore remains pending.

¶30

Key takeaways

There being no reason for the petition to remain pending, the Court directed that the petitioner's complaint dated 13.01.2025 be taken to its logical conclusion by the concerned District Judge with due expedition, and disposed of the petition accordingly.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Civil) — contractual security employees at Rohini Courts, North-West District, Delhi — grievance of alleged malpractices by M/S A 1Security Service, the private contractor appointed through tender to provide security services at Rohini District Court — forced signing of blank documents allegedly misused to fabricate resignation letters and false loan agreements, forcible opening of bank accounts and misappropriation of salaries, non-deposit of deducted Provident Fund contributions, terminations without notice, and intimidation of employees seeking legal remedies — by order dated 07.03.2025 the Court had issued notice to respondents Nos. 1 and 3 and requested the learned District Judge, Rohini Courts, to decide the petitioner's complaint dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) read with reminder dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-8) — no order passed and the complaint remains pending — Court directs the concerned District Judge to take the complaint to its logical conclusion with due expedition — petition disposed of (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., 09.02.2026).

¶1

$~62

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2936/2025

¶4

POONAM SHARMA AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Ms. Aayushi Jain, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S A 1SECURITY SERVICE AND ORS .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr.V. Sibi Kargil, Mr.Ashish Kumar Upadhyay and Mr. V. Keerthana, Advs. for R-1.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 09.02.2026

¶11

The Court vide order dated 07.03.2025 has made the following observations:

¶12

“ CM APPL. 13950/2025 -Exemption

¶13

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

2. Application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(CI 2936/20253.

¶16

3. The present petition raises a grievance as regards alleged malpractices against the contractual employees engaged in the Rohini Courts, NorthWest District, Delhi.

¶17

4. It is pointed out that the respondent no.l is the private contractor which is appointed pursuant to a tender, to provide security services at Rohini District Court. It is submitted that the said entity is engaged in the following illegal activities:

¶18

a) Forcing employees to sign blank documents later misused to fabricate resignation letters and false loan agreements.

¶19

b) Forcibly opening bank accounts in employees' names and misappropriating their salaries.

¶20

c) Failing to deposit Provident Fund contributions deducted from employees' wages.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 11/02/2026 at 11:28:18

¶23

d) Illegally terminating employees without notice or justification.

¶24

e) Intimidating employees who sought legal remedies against their wrongful terminations.

¶25

5. It is submitted that the petitioners/contractual workers who have been engaged through respondent no.l have been subject to irregular payment of salaries, arbitrary terminations, and denial of basic employment benefits, violating their fundamental and statutory rights.

¶26

6. Issue notice to the respondent nos.l and 3, on necessary steps being taken by the petitioner, through all permissible modes including electronically.

¶27

7. Let reply be filed by the said respondents within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, be filed within a period of two weeks from today.

¶28

8. In the meantime, learned District Judge, Rohini Court, North-West District is requested to decide the complaint of the petitioner submitted on 13.01.2025 (Annexure P5) read with reminder dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure PS).

¶29

9. List on 26.05.2025.”

¶30

There does not seem to be any order passed by the concerned District Judge, Rohini Court, North West.

¶31

The petitioner’s complaint ( Annexure P-5 ) vide its reminder dated 03.02.2025 ( Annexure P-8 ) remains pending.

¶32

Under these circumstances, there is no reason as to why this petition should be pending, and instead, it is directed that the petitioner’s complaint dated 13.01.2025 be taken to its logical conclusion by the concerned District Judge with due expedition.

¶33

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶34

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶35

FEBRUARY 9, 2026/P

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 11/02/2026 at 11:28:18

Poonam Sharma and Ors. v. M/S a 1SECURITY Service and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Sharma and Ors. v. M/S a 1SECURITY Service and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Sri Saudan Singh Institute of Higher Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Smt Harpyari Devi Girls Degree College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Siddharth Mishra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Madanjit Kumar Vs Central Electronics Limited

Sh. Sanjeev Rana Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Mahesh Nath Singh Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Ors.

Deepak Kaushik Vs Principal Judge North West District and Ors.

Anuj Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Rajeshwari Realty Private Limited Vs Nbcc (India) Limited & Anr.

Col Anil Khajuria Retd Vs Union of India & Ors.

Firefly Batteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs P. Sudhakaran & Anr.

Munawara Mahboobi on Behalf of Mursal Kakar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kashish Uppal & Anr. Vs Shriram Housing Finance Limited