The rejection of regularization claims for contract workers must be based on thorough consideration of applicable Government Orders rather than solely on employment status.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, CJI.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal challenges the interim order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Contempt Application (C) No. 4876 of 2020.

3. The present appeal has a chequered history.

4. Numerous petitions have been filed by the respondents who are drivers engaged by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. However, we do not find it necessary to delve into the earlier proceedings, inasmuch as the reference to the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ A. No. 9743 of 2019 and the subsequent orders passed by the NOIDA and the High Court, would suffice for the purpose.

5. In pursuance to the earlier representations made by the respondents, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the NOIDA rejected their claims for regularization of services vide an order dated 08.11.2017.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed a writ petition for quashing of the aforesaid order and further praying for regularization of their services.

7. It will be relevant to refer the following observations of the High Court while disposing of the writ petition:

“The petitioners herein have approached this Court on an earlier occasion with the specific prayer for consideration of their claims for regularization within the purview of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 (replaced by the Regularization Rules, 2016). The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.1403 of 2005 categorically observed that the stand of the employer NOIDA that the petitioners/appellants were contractual employees and they were engaged through some contractor was not substantiated by bringing any relevant material on record. Noticing that a conscious decision had been taken by the State Government to provide regular appointment to all daily wagers/contractual/work charge employees working in the Government Establishments or local authorities, it was directed that the NOIDA Authority was under obligation to consider the claim of regularization of the appellants in the light of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016. It is not disputed that the petitioners herein were party to the above proceedings wherein the Special Appellate Court had issued directions to the respondent to consider the claim of regularization of the Daily Wage/Work charge/Contractual Employees, irrespective of the fact that they were party in the Special Appeal or not. It is admitted in the present proceeding that a comprehensive representation pressing their claim for regularization under the scheme of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 was filed by the petitioners herein and the same was rejected vide order impugned dated 8.11.2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA.

It is further noteworthy that existence or absence of none of the qualifying conditions of regularization of a daily wager/work charge/contract employee in the establishment (NOIDA) as against the existing vacancy has been considered by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA. While rejecting their representation, the claim of the petitioners seeking for regularization has been brushed aside solely on the ground that they were engaged for intermittent work throug