1. Regularization of services — Rejection of claims — High Court direction for fresh consideration — Alleged contempt of court for subsequent rejection of claims. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1165
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI., K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Ritu Maheshwari, Chief Executive Officer – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Nagar And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9903 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16848 of 2021)
Decided On : 29-07-2025
Important Points
The rejection of regularization claims for contract workers must be based on thorough consideration of applicable Government Orders rather than solely on employment status.
Subject
Employment Law - Regularization of Services
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Appeal against interim order - The CEO of NOIDA rejected claims of drivers for regularization based on non-application of relevant Government Orders - High Court found the rejection unsustainable due to lack of consideration of qualifying conditions - Appeal allowed, previous order quashed. (Paras 3, 8, 34)
(B) Regularization of Services - The Court emphasized that claims of drivers for regularization should not be denied solely on grounds of contractor employment and required assessment of each claim as per relevant Government Orders and Rules. (Paras 26, 32)
Facts of the case:
Respondents, drivers engaged by NOIDA, sought regularization citing prior commitments and governmental directives that were ignored in previous rejection of their claims. (Paras 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The earlier rejection of claims was deemed without proper application of mind; thus, the order was set aside, and the CEO was directed to reconsider the claims based on relevant criteria. (Paras 34)
Issues: The Court addressed whether rejection based on contractor employment was sufficient, along with appropriate considerations for regularization. (Paras 11, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that sufficient grounds must be established for any claim rejection and that appeals for regularization must consider all applicable regulations fairly without prejudice. (Paras 28, 32)
Result: Appeal allowed; order of the High Court quashed.
(B) Regularization of Services - The Court emphasized that claims of drivers for regularization should not be denied solely on grounds of contractor employment and required assessment of each claim as per relevant Government Orders and Rules. (Paras 26, 32)
Facts of the case:
Respondents, drivers engaged by NOIDA, sought regularization citing prior commitments and governmental directives that were ignored in previous rejection of their claims. (Paras 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The earlier rejection of claims was deemed without proper application of mind; thus, the order was set aside, and the CEO was directed to reconsider the claims based on relevant criteria. (Paras 34)
Issues: The Court addressed whether rejection based on contractor employment was sufficient, along with appropriate considerations for regularization. (Paras 11, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that sufficient grounds must be established for any claim rejection and that appeals for regularization must consider all applicable regulations fairly without prejudice. (Paras 28, 32)
Result: Appeal allowed; order of the High Court quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sourav Roy, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Adv. (Through VC) Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR (Mentioned by) Mr. Shishir Pinaki, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sourav Roy, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Adv. (Through VC) Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR (Mentioned by) Mr. Shishir Pinaki, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends compliance via reasoned orders rejecting claims; respondents argue rejections were based on grounds previously set aside, constituting willful disobedience. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
3. Rejection of claims based on multiple criteria—including qualifications and financial burden—rather than solely on contract labor status, constitutes compliance with court directions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Compliance with a direction to consider claims without relying solely on a specific ground is established if the decision is based on multiple independent factors. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned contempt order quashed — Respondents granted liberty to challenge rejection orders with benefit of Section 14, Limitation Act. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
6. When does a rejection of a claim constitute contempt of a court order directing fresh consideration?
It does not constitute contempt if the authority considers the claim and rejects it based on multiple grounds, provided it does not rely solely on a ground specifically prohibited by the court. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 )
7. What is the remedy for a party aggrieved by a reasoned order passed in compliance with a court direction?
If a party is aggrieved by the reasoning in a speaking order passed in compliance with court directions, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action to challenge those orders. (Para 30 , 34 )
8. How does the court treat the period spent pursuing a remedy in a higher court regarding limitation?
Parties may be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the period spent pursuing the matter before the higher court. (Para 36 )
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 through a Contractor. The period of engagement of the representationists/petitioners herein has not been considered in the order impugned nor any record of their engagement has been produced before the Court alongwith the counter affidavit filed in the present proceeding. This Court is, therefore, constrained to form an opinion that the order impugned dated 8.11.2017 is a result of non- application of mind by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA.
The rejection of claim for regularization of the petitioners herein is not within the purview of the Regularization Rules' 2016 or the Government order dated 24.2.2016. For the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 8.11.2017 passed by the
