$~66 & 67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4646/2026, CM APPLs. 22658/2026 & 22659/2026 NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, ASG with Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, ASC with Ms. Suruchi Khandelwal, Mr. Vidit Pratap Singh and Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advs.

versus KALPANA SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Dr. Monika Arora, with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Ms. Anamika Thakur and Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 4649/2026, CM APPLs. 22666/2026, 22667/2026 &

22668/2026 NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, ASG with Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, ASC with Ms. Suruchi Khandelwal, Mr. Vidit Pratap Singh and Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advs.

versus RITIKA ARORA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Dr. Monika Arora, with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Ms. Anamika Thakur and Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 13.04.2026

1. These writ petitions, at the instance of the New Delhi Municipal Council, 1“NDMC”,hereinafter, assail a common order dated 25 November 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, C. HARI SHANKAR, J. in OA 20/2022, 3RitikaAroraandOrs.v.NewDelhiMunicipalCouncilandAnr. and OA 3069/2021, 4KalpanaSharmaandOrs.v.NDMCandAnr.. Ritika Arora and others, the respondents in WP (C) 4649/2026 are Auxiliary Nurse Midwifes, 5“ANMs”,hereinafter whereas Kalpana Sharma and others, the respondents in WP (C) 4646/2026 are Pharmacists.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has directed regularisation of the respondents in the posts held by them. In doing so, the Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 62025SCCOnLineDel8313, authored by one of us (C. Hari Shankar, J.) which, in turn, followed the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. UOI, 7(2024)9SCC327, Jaggo v. UOI, 82024SCCOnLineSC3826 Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 92025SCCOnLineSC221 and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 102025SCCOnLineSC1735

3. After the rendition of the decision in Pawan Sharma by this Court, the same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 112026SCCOnLineSC129 and Pawan Kumar v. UOI¹²

4. Despite the matter being thus covered by a plethora of decisions

2“theTribunal”,hereinafter

of the Supreme Court, the NDMC has yet again carried the dispute to this Court.

Facts

5. Though the facts in these writ petitions are identical, for the sake of clarity, we may advert to them separately.

WP(C) 4646/2026 (NDMC v. Kalpana Sharma and Ors.)

6. The respondents, who were Pharmacists registered with the Indian Pharmacy Council applied in response to an advertisement issued by the NDMC for filling up vacancies of Allopathic Pharmacists. It is not in dispute that the respondents satisfied the qualifications for recruitment as Pharmacists as set out in the advertisement. The recruitment was by way of open selection. The Selection Committee assessed the candidates, including the respondents, and appointed them as Pharmacists on the following dates:

122026SCCOnLineSC200

7. The appointments were on contract basis for a period of six months, which continued, and continue till today. A sample letter of an offer of appointment issued to one of the respondents may be reproduced as under:

“MEDICALDEPARTMENT CHGARAKPALIKAHOSPITAL MOTIBAGH: NEW DELHI No.DMO(ISM&H)/913/D/08 Dated26.6.08 To, Ms.NehaThapliyal, 8-A/430,DDA Flats, Tirlokpuri,Delhi-92 OFFER LETTER Ms. Neha Thapliyal, candidate on the approved panel of Allopathic Pharmacists is offered the post of Allopathic Pharmacist on contract basis for a period of six months on the salary based upon the basic pay on ₹4500+75% usual allowances as admissible under contract rules.

In case the offer is accepted to you, you are advised to give your acceptance within 10 days of the receipt of this letter, failing which theoffer will begiventothenext candidate