Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Vicky and Ors

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 8263/2025 & CM APPL. 36037/2025 W.P.(C) 9938/2025 & CM APPL. 41391/2025

2. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 350/2023; and the Order dated 11.11.2024 in O.A. No. 986/2022, whereby the aforesaid O.As were disposed of in terms of the directions contained in the earlier Order dated 11.11.2024 passed in O.A. No.986/2022, which reads as under: “Conclusion:

13. In light of the above analysis, we partly allow the present OA to the limited extent by directing the respondents that the circular dated 10.03.2021 be applied in the case of the applicants and they shall be paid consolidated pay at minimum of pay scale in the relevant pay band, which is given to a new entrant on his/her initial appointment. The arrears thereto shall be paid for the last three years from the date of filing the present OA. 13.1. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13.2. The interim order dated 25.05.2022 is made absolute in so far as the directions contained therein are concerned. However, the said directions shall not give any right to the applicants for seeking regularization. 13.3. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of There shall be no order as to costs.

3. The limited grievance of the petitioners against the Impugned Orders is that the respondents were not working as Contractual Employees of the petitioners, but had been employed by the Contractor/Outsource Agency, which, had been engaged by the petitioners.

4. The learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that between 2018 to 2022, the respondents had been directly appointed on a daily wage basis by the petitioners and not through any Contractor or outsource agency. He further submits that for the said period, the petitioners directly paid wages to the respondents by depositing the same into their respective bank accounts. He confines his prayer for relief of equal pay for equal work only to the period 2018 to 2022 when the respondents were working directly under the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the above statement will have to be verified by the petitioners.

6. As the respondents have confined their prayer and relief only to the period during which they were directly employed by the petitioners on a daily wages basis, rather than through a contractor or outsource agency, the challenge raised by the petitioners in the present petitions does not survive. The petitioners shall verify the above statement of the respondents. In case the respondents were directly employed by the petitioners on a daily wages basis for any period, the relief granted by the learned Tribunal confined to such period shall be released to them, if not already released, within a period of eight weeks from today.

7. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending application is also disposed of as infructuous.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J JULY 28, 2025/Arya/DG