Justice C Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Expresses “Deep Regret” Over Decades-Long Litigation, Laments Railways’ Failure To Regularise Low-Paid Group D Employees
|The Bench upheld the ₹1 lakh penalty, and observed that the tribunal had erred, if at all, on the side of leniency, emphasizing that courts must protect weaker sections of society.
The Delhi High Court expressing “deep regret” over low-paid Group-D workers being forced to litigate for decades, has dismissed two writ petitions filed by the Ministry of Railways against the regularisation of commission-based bearers and vendors. The Bench upheld a 2016 Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruling, lamenting the department’s failure to grant workers their just entitlements despite explicit directives from the Supreme Court spanning nearly 40 years.
The Court also took strong exception to contradictory statements filed by the Railways, calling the lack of candour "very disturbing".
Upholding the ₹1 lakh penalty, the Bench observed that the tribunal had erred, if at all, on the side of leniency, emphasizing that courts must protect weaker sections of society to uphold the nation's preambular goal of a socialist democracy. The Union of India must now execute the tribunal's order, regularising the respondents, paying minimum scale arrears with allowances from November 14, 2000, and disbursing the costs, within four weeks, failing which the tribunal is ordered to immediately revive pending contempt proceedings.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla “We deem it appropriate to state, at the outset, that it is a matter of deep regret that low paid Group-D employees, working as bearers and vendors, are having to litigate for decades in order to secure their just entitlements, despite the directions issued by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion”.
“Apparently, therefore, the Railways have been unable to substantiate the assertion, in the afore-extracted table, which was filed both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, that several of the respondents had been absorbed as Group-D employees. To say the least, this is very disturbing. One would expect the Railways to display candour both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court. We, therefore, are inclined to believe the respondents in their assertions that none of the respondents in either of these writ petitions have been regularised, despite repeated orders passed by judicial fora up to the Supreme Court”, it remarked further.
Mukul Singh, CGSC appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ambhoj Kumar Sinha appeared for the respondent.
The respondents worked on a commission basis as bearers and vendors in the North Eastern Railway. Their claim to regularisation rests on a Railway Board Circular dated December 13, 1976, which promised progressive absorption of commission vendors into regular vacancies. Despite multiple Supreme Court orders, including Mahesh v. Union of India (1987) and South Eastern Railway Congress v. Chairman, Railway Board (1997), and a subsequent 2005 Railway Board Circular relaxing educational requirements, the workers were left without permanent status.
They approached the tribunal in 2013 and 2014, obtaining a favorable order on November 7, 2016, which directed their regularisation, payment of minimum pay scales from November 14, 2000, and ₹1 lakh in costs. The Union of India subsequently challenged this order before the High Court.
Lamenting the prolonged injustice, the Bench noted at the very outset that it is a matter of deep regret that low-paid Group-D employees are having to litigate for decades to secure their just entitlements despite directions issued by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion.
On the recent Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reaffirmed that continuous performance of essential, perennial duties transforms temporary employment into a substantive right to regularisation. Continuing workers on ad-hoc arrangements for decades amounts to an unfair labor practice violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“It is not disputed, before us, that all the respondents would fall within this category. There is no question, therefore, of the Railways having thereafter resorted to any process of screening so as to eliminate some, or even any, of the respondents from regularization”, it noted.
Insofar as the costs imposed by the Tribunal are concerned, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred, if at all, on the side of leniency. It is time that Courts protected the interests of the weaker sections of the society and persons drawing paltry wages, so as to ensure that the socialist structure of our democracy – which is a preambular goal – remains intact. We would have been inclined, in fact, to enhance the costs awarded by the Tribunal but, somewhat hesitatingly, refrain from doing so”, the Bench said.
Cause Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Mithai Lal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7602-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mukul Singh, CGSC with Aryan Dhaka, Adv.
Respondent: Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Adv.