NARESH YADAV vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 09.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 10.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 10.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 12997/2021 NARESH YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Ms. S. Janani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav, CGSC with Ms. Kamna Behrani, Mr. Ansh Kalra and Mr. Neeraj Paulose Raj, Advs. for R-1/UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. The present Petition, preferred by the Petitioner, assails the correctness of the order dated 21.01.2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’], whereby O.A. No.3732/2014 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed. 2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether a person who was engaged on daily wage basis and whose services were subsequently regularized, is entitled to claim regularization with retrospective effect from the date of his initial Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:10.03.2026 W.P.(C) 12997/2025 Page 1 of 6 18:23:19 engagement, in the absence of any statutory provision, rule or policy conferring such benefit. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. In order to comprehend the controversy involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 4. The Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 11.08.1989 with the Respondents. It is not in dispute that such engagement was not pursuant to a regular recruitment process under the applicable recruitment rules governing the post in question. The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 1087/2011 before the CAT seeking a direction to the Respondents to regula