Mukesh Kumar Dixit & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

¶1

$~2 to 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4749/2026 & CM APPL. 23245/2026 SACHIN PARASHAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Pankaj Kr. Singh, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Singla and Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Advocates for FSSAI.

¶2

W.P.(C) 4790/2026 & CM APPLs. 23407-23408/2026 VINAY KUMAR SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Pankaj Kr. Singh, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, CGSC with Ms Aakriti, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, SPC with Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Mohan Dwivedi, G.P. for UOI. Mr. Aditya Singla and Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Advocates for FSSAI.

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 4799/2026 & CM A MUKESH KUMAR DIXIT & Through:	PPLs. 23483-23484/2026 ORS. .....Petitioners Mr. Pankaj Kr. Singh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through:	.....Respondents Mr. Rajeev Kumar, SPC with Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP for R-1. Mr. Aditya Singla and Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Advocates for FSSAI.

¶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 22/07/2026 at 12:48:27

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

% 17.07.2026

¶8

The present batch of petitions concerns contractual employees engaged by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India¹ in various capacities. The Petitioners state that their engagements were made pursuant to advertisements issued by FSSAI, after a selection process involving scrutiny of applications and interviews. It is further submitted that, during the course of their contractual engagement, some of the Petitioners have also been granted promotions, though they continue to serve on contractual terms.

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners relies upon File No. 41011/09/2009Admn.FSSAI, concerning fixation of remuneration of contractual employees, to submit that the Petitioners are entitled to revision of their remuneration in terms of the recommendations of the 7^th Central Pay Commission,² with effect from 1^st January, 2016.

¶10

It is further submitted that the benefit of the 7^th CPC has been extended to other categories of contractual appointees, including consultants, whose tenure of engagement is shorter than that of the Petitioners.

¶11

Reliance is also placed on the observations contained in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to contend that, over the years, the Petitioners have been performing functions comparable to those discharged by regular employees.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners clarifies that, although some of the

¶13

1 “FSSAI”

¶14

2 “CPC”

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 22/07/2026 at 12:48:27

¶17

Petitioners have instituted separate proceedings seeking regularisation of their services, the present petitions are confined to the claim for extension of the benefits of the 7^th CPC and consequential revision of remuneration.

¶18

It is lastly submitted that the Petitioners’ representation dated 11^th March, 2025, seeking extension of the benefits of the 7^th CPC to contractual employees of FSSAI, remains pending consideration.

¶19

Mr. Aditya Singla, counsel for FSSAI, submits that, in the absence of any instructions, he is unable to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners.

¶20

The claim urged by the Petitioners turns on the terms of their contractual engagement, the applicable administrative decisions of FSSAI, and the manner in which similarly placed contractual employees have been treated. These aspects require consideration by the competent authority in the first instance, particularly as the Petitioners’ representation dated 11^th March, 2025 remains pending. It would, therefore, be appropriate to require FSSAI to examine the representation and take a reasoned decision thereon, without this Court expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim.

¶21

Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the Petitioners’ pending representation, by way of a reasoned order, within a period of eight weeks from today. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioners forthwith.

¶22

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioners’ claim. If the decision taken by FSSAI does not redress the Petitioners’ grievances, it shall be open to the Petitioners to avail such remedies as may be available to them in law. All rights and contentions

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 22/07/2026 at 12:48:27

¶25

of the parties are left open.

¶26

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶27

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶28

JULY 17, 2026 as

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 22/07/2026 at 12:48:27

Mukesh Kumar Dixit & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Dixit & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

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

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shakeel Ahmad Burney

Ratinder Nath Abrol Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Union of India and Ors. Vs Chandrakant Tyagi

Lieutenant Commander Prahlad Kumar Varshney Vs Union of India and Others

Sh Vyome Mehta Vs Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Delhi Zone & Ors.

Cma (Dr.) Nirmal Kumar Bhattacharyya Vs Institute of Cost Accountants of India

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs Prashant Singh & Anr.

Ms. Aqsa Azeem Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Badle Ram Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors.

A.K. Basak Vs Gnctd & Ors.

Jatan Swaroop and Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Aditi Chopra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms. Vijaya Sharma Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Smt. Poonam Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.