Authority: High Court of Delhi (Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar)

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Anil Kumar & Ors.; Respondents – Union of India & Delhi Milk Scheme.
  • Petition: Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 15‑12‑2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, OA No. 2989 of 2015, which dismissed the petitioners' applications for regularisation.
  • Background: Petitioners were appointed as ‘Badli’ workers at Delhi Milk Scheme from 01‑01‑1999 to 31‑12‑1999. Under the Certified Standing Orders, a Badli worker who works not less than 240 days in any 12‑month period must be transferred to regular establishment.
  • Petitioners’ Argument: They claimed to have worked more than 240 days by counting weekly holidays worked, compensatory holidays granted in lieu of those weekly offs, and national holidays, relying on Sections 52 & 53 of the Factories Act, 1948, and Rule 77 of the Delhi Factory Rules 1950 (Form 9).
  • Respondents’ Argument: Asserted Badli workers are contractual; without 240 actual days they are ineligible for regularisation. Cited Division Bench judgment UOI v Shishpal (W.P.(C) 77/2007, 23‑05‑2013) that compensatory holidays cannot be double‑counted with wages, and Supreme Court decision Secretary, State of Karnataka v Uma Devi (2006) that temporary workers are not entitled to regularisation merely by length of service.
  • Legal Provisions Discussed: Factories Act 1948 – Sections 52 (Weekly holidays) & 53 (Compensatory holidays); Delhi Factory Rules 1950 – Rule 77 (Compensatory holidays & Form 9); Standing Order proviso requiring “actually” worked 240 days.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • Adopted the Division Bench view that days on which workers are paid for work on Sundays/off days cannot be counted again as extra working days.
  • Noted that Section 53 provides a compensatory holiday instead of the weekly holiday, not an additional counted working day.
  • Rule 77 and Form 9 merely prescribe the mechanism for granting compensatory holidays; they do not dictate inclusion of such holidays in the 240‑day calculation.
  • The proviso to Rule 4(iii) of the Standing Order expressly excludes compensatory holidays from the “actually worked” count.
  • Consequently, the petitioners did not satisfy the 240‑day requirement.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court upheld the CAT’s order, finding no infirmity in its reasoning, and dismissed the petition.

Topics: Labor Law, Badli Worker Regularisation