Delhi High Court – Orders
Suman Bhalla & Ors vs Gnct Of Delhi & Ors on 19 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3534/2026 & CM APPL. 17077/2026
SUMAN BHALLA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Varun Mudgil, Mr. Rakesh
Kumar, Ms. Eti Kushwaha,
Advocates.
versus
GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for
GNCTD with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms.
Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advocates for R-1, 2 & 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 19.03.2026
1. The Petitioners are retired Teachers (TGTs/PGTs) who have served
the Punjabi Academy, Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD). They assert
that they were inducted between 1985 and 1990, through a selection process,
served for over three decades, and, despite rendering long and continuous
service in the schools of the DoE, have not been extended post-retiral
benefits such as pension and health-card facilities.
2. The Petitioners had earlier approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal by filing OA No. 2665/2023, seeking post-retiral benefits. That
original application was disposed of on 7th October, 2023 with a direction to
the Respondents to take an appropriate decision on the representations
submitted by the Petitioners. The Petitioners thereafter initiated contempt
proceedings alleging non-compliance. During those proceedings, the
W.P.(C) 3534/2026 Page 1 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:48:12
Respondents placed on record a compliance affidavit along with the order
dated 10th June, 2024 rejecting the Petitioners’ claim for post-retiral benefits,
whereupon the contempt petition came to be disposed of on 24th July, 2024.
3. The Petitioners then challenged the said order before the Central
Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4716/2024. By order dated 3 rd February,
2026, the Tribunal permitted withdrawal of the original application after
observing that the Punjabi Academy was not among the organisations
notified under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and
granted liberty to the Petitioners to pursue such other remedy as may be
available in law. The present writ petition has been filed in that backdrop.
4. The Petitioners submit that the contractual label attached to their
engagement does not reflect the true character of their service. According to
them, they worked for over three decades in schools of the Directorate,
discharged a full teaching workload, and were, in substance, part of the
State’s teaching arrangement. They place particular reliance on the decision
taken in April, 2008 and the Directorate’s orders dated 20 th June, 2008,
under which 231 part-time teachers deployed through the Sanskrit, Urdu and
Punjabi Academies were made full-time and their consolidated remuneration
was enhanced. On that foundation, and with reliance on Rajkaran Singh v.
Union of India1 and the decision of this Court in Pawan Sharma v Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Ors.2, they contend that the formal label of a contractual
appointment cannot, by itself, be used to deny service rights said to have
arisen from the nature, duration, and continuity of their employment.
5. The Petitioners place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2138
2
DHC:9789-DB
W.P.(C) 3534/2026 Page 2 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:48:12
Rajkaran Singh to contend that the mere description of an employee as
temporary or contractual cannot, by itself, justify denial of pensionary
benefits where the actual course of service reflects long, continuous, and
substantive engagement. On that basis, they submit that the denial of retiral
benefits in the present case is arbitrary and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.
6. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD, submits that the Petitioners
were engaged by the Punjabi Academy on purely contractual terms for each
academic session and only for the period during which the schools were in
operation, namely 10 months and 10 days. She emphasises that the
Petitioners accepted those terms each year, including the stipulation that no
remuneration would be payable during summer vacation. Their case is that
the remuneration of these teachers has all along been governed by specific
orders of the Directorate of Education, and that the Petitioners cannot,
therefore, claim HRA, TA, 7th CPC benefits, summer vacation salary, or
parity of service conditions with regular teachers. According to them, the
Government merely provided funds under a separate grant-in-aid scheme for
Punjabi teaching in schools, while the contractual relationship remained
with the Punjabi Academy, which disbursed the remuneration. They further
cannot claim parity with Kashmiri Migrant Teachers, and that the
contractual terms themselves excluded any demand for regularisation,
permanent appointment, or regular service benefits. Their submission, in
essence, is that long service by itself cannot convert a contractual
arrangement into a regular pensionable one.
7. The Court has considered the rival submissions. Petitioner’s claim is
not insubstantial merely because the Petitioners were described as
W.P.(C) 3534/2026 Page 3 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:48:12
contractual teachers. The record shows that they were engaged for long
years, were deployed in Government schools of the Directorate of
Education, and, in 2008, were brought from part-time to full-time status
under a Cabinet decision followed by orders of the Directorate of Education.
The case must, therefore, be examined on what that arrangement did, and
equally on what it did not do.
8. The difficulty for the Petitioners is that the record on which they rely
does not carry their case as far as is suggested. The Directorate’s order dated
20th June, 2008 did make all 231 teachers full-time with immediate effect
and provided that they would work full-time as per post-fixation norms. But,
on the same date, the Directorate issued a further order laying down the
terms of such deployment. That order stated in clear terms that elevation of
part-time teachers as full-time teachers would not entitle them to claim
regularisation or any concession such as leave, LTC and medical facilities at
par with regular teachers of the Directorate. The arrangement was thus
consciously widened, but equally consciously limited. What was extended
was full-time deployment with enhanced consolidated remuneration; what
was expressly withheld was any claim to regularisation, parity of service
conditions, or integration into the regular cadre.
9. That feature goes to the root of the case. Pension does not arise
merely from long service or from the fact that the employee worked full-
time. It must rest on the service framework that governs the post. The
Petitioners have not pointed to any rule, notification, executive decision or
condition of service under which contractual Punjabi teachers deployed
through the Punjabi Academy were absorbed into the regular cadre of the
Directorate or brought within a pension scheme applicable to regular
W.P.(C) 3534/2026 Page 4 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:48:12
Government teachers. The impugned order dated 10 th June, 2024 may not
answer every submission with equal clarity, but on the central issue it
proceeds on a clear footing: the Petitioners remained contractual appointees,
their remuneration continued to be consolidated and regulated by orders
issued from time to time, and the existing arrangement did not extend
regular service or pensionary benefits to them. On the record before the
Court, that conclusion cannot be said to be without basis.
10. Rajkaran Singh does not assist the Petitioners in the manner
suggested. The decision arose in a materially different setting. The Supreme
Court found there that the employees had been appointed on running pay
scales, had received increments, promotions and ACP, had been extended
leave and other service benefits, and had, over time, come to be treated in
substance as equivalent to regular government employees. It was in these
factual circumstances that the Court held that denial of pension merely by
invoking their temporary label was arbitrary. The present case stands on a
different footing. These Petitioners remained on consolidated remuneration.
They were not shown to have been brought into a regular pay structure,
granted ACP, confirmed in service, or otherwise treated administratively as
equivalent to regular Government teachers for pensionary purposes. The
order of 20th June, 2008 itself preserved the distinction by withholding parity
of service conditions with regular teachers. The basis on which Rajkaran
Singh was decided is, therefore, absent here.
11. The reliance placed on Indu Munshi and Ors. v Union of India and
Ors.3 is also misplaced. That decision arose in the context of a special
scheme framed to rehabilitate displaced Kashmiri migrants, where,
W.P.(C) 3534/2026 Page 5 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:48:12
notwithstanding the contractual terms of appointment, the State’s own
conduct over a prolonged period, coupled with the peculiar humanitarian
context, led the Court to conclude that the distinction between contractual
and regular service had, in substance, been eroded. The present case stands
on a materially different footing. The Petitioners’ engagement was governed
throughout by a contractual framework with consolidated remuneration, and
the governing orders consistently preserved the distinction between
contractual and regular service. Significantly, even the order dated 20 th June,
2008, while extending full-time deployment, expressly withheld parity of
status and service conditions. No comparable facts or policy exists to
warrant the conclusion that the contractual character of the Petitioners’
engagement had been effaced. The factual foundation on which Indu
Munshi proceeded is thus absent.
12. Pawan Sharma also does not carry the Petitioners any further. That
decision proceeded on facts of a different order. The Court there emphasised
that the appointments had followed a regular selection process, that the
Petitioners had been appointed against sanctioned posts, that the duties
discharged by them were essential and perennial, and that their claim was
reinforced by an existing policy direction towards regularisation of
contractual para-medical staff. Those features were central to the relief
ultimately granted. Here, long service and substantive work have
undoubtedly been pleaded. What has not been shown is appointment against
sanctioned regular posts in the Directorate’s establishment, or any
comparable policy decision operating in favour of these Petitioners. On the
contrary, the 2008 deployment order expressly withheld any claim to
3
2018:DHC:3390-DB
W.P.(C) 3534/2026 Page 6 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:48:12
regularisation or parity in service conditions. Pawan Sharma cannot,
therefore, be read as laying down that every long-serving contractual
employee in a State-supported arrangement becomes entitled to pension
regardless of the governing service framework.
13. The reliance on long service, by itself, is also insufficient. Secretary,
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi,4 did recognise that certain irregular
appointments in duly sanctioned vacant posts, continued for ten years or
more, may require consideration as a one-time measure. Later decisions
have, in particular factual settings, granted relief where the employment had,
in substance, become indistinguishable from regular service. But none of
those authorities holds that courts may create a pensionable service structure
where the governing orders expressly preserve contractual status and deny
parity in service conditions. The material on record does not establish that
their contractual full-time engagement ever ripened into regular service for
pension purposes.
14. The reliance placed on the grant of gratuity pursuant to the decision in
Irfan Ali & Ors. v. Urdu Academy & Ors.5 does not advance the
Petitioners’ case. That decision rests on the interpretation of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972, as amended, whereby the definition of “employee” was
expanded to include teachers irrespective of the nature of their engagement,
including contractual or ad hoc appointments. The entitlement to gratuity
thus arises from a statutory framework which expressly disregards the
distinction between regular and contractual employment. Pension, by
contrast, is not a general statutory entitlement of this nature but flows from
4
(2006) 4 SCC 1
5
2023:DHC:4190
W.P.(C) 3534/2026 Page 7 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:48:12
the governing service rules and the existence of a recognised pensionable
service relationship. The grant of gratuity under a welfare statute cannot,
therefore, be treated as indicative of parity in status or as a basis to claim
pensionary benefits.
15. The prayer for a direction to frame guidelines for pension, health-card
facility and other social security benefits cannot be granted in the form
sought. Such a direction would, in substance, require the Court to compel
the State to create a new service entitlement through policy or rule, without
any existing legal foundation supporting it. The Court may examine
executive action on constitutional or legal grounds. It does not, in the
absence of a recognised right, frame a pension or social security regime for a
class of employees.
16. In the end, the Petitioners are able to show long and valuable service,
deployment in Government schools under a State-supported arrangement,
and an executive decision in 2008 that improved the terms on which they
worked. But, they are unable to show that such engagement translated into
regular pensionable service. That distinction is decisive. Full-time
deployment is not the same as regular appointment. Enhanced consolidated
remuneration is not the same as induction into a pensionable cadre. On the
record as it stands, the impugned order dated 10th June, 2024 cannot be said
to suffer from any illegality warranting interference under Article 226.
17. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MARCH 19, 2026/ab
W.P.(C) 3534/2026 Page 8 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:48:12
