Supreme Court of India
Ritu Maheshwari, Chief Executive … vs Ramesh Chandra Nagar on 29 July, 2025
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
2025 INSC 940 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16848 of 2021)
RITU MAHESHWARI,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER …APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAMESH CHANDRA NAGAR
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the interim order dated
06.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Contempt Application (C)
No. 4876 of 2020.
3. The present appeal has a chequered history.
4. Numerous petitions have been filed by the respondents
who are drivers engaged by New Okhla Industrial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of
Date: 2025.08.07
16:27:19 IST
Reason:
their services. However, we do not find it necessary to delve
1
into the earlier proceedings, inasmuch as the reference to theorder dated 04.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court in Writ A. No. 9743 of 2019 and the
subsequent orders passed by the NOIDA and the High Court,
would suffice for the purpose.
5. In pursuance to the earlier representations made by the
respondents, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) of the NOIDA rejected their claims for regularization of
services vide an order dated 08.11.2017.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed a
writ petition for quashing of the aforesaid order and further
praying for regularization of their services.
7. It will be relevant to refer the following observations of
the High Court while disposing of the writ petition:
“The petitioners herein have approached this
Court on an earlier occasion with the specific prayer
for consideration of their claims for regularization
within the purview of the Government Order dated
24.2.2016 (replaced by the Regularization Rules,
2016). The Division Bench of this Court in Special
Appeal No.1403 of 2005 categorically observed that
the stand of the employer NOIDA that the
petitioners/appellants were contractual employees
and they were engaged through some contractor
was not substantiated by bringing any relevant
material on record. Noticing that a conscious
decision had been taken by the State Government to2
provide regular appointment to all daily
wagers/contractual/work charge employees
working in the Government Establishments or local
authorities, it was directed that the NOIDA
Authority was under obligation to consider the
claim of regularization of the appellants in the light
of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016. It is not
disputed that the petitioners herein were party to
the above proceedings wherein the Special Appellate
Court had issued directions to the respondent to
consider the claim of regularization of the Daily
Wage/Work charge/Contractual Employees,
irrespective of the fact that they were party in the
Special Appeal or not. It is admitted in the present
proceeding that a comprehensive representation
pressing their claim for regularization under the
scheme of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016
was filed by the petitioners herein and the same was
rejected vide order impugned dated 8.11.2017
passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA.
It is further noteworthy that existence or
absence of none of the qualifying conditions of
regularization of a daily wager/work
charge/contract employee in the establishment
(NOIDA) as against the existing vacancy has been
considered by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA.
While rejecting their representation, the claim of the
petitioners seeking for regularization has been
brushed aside solely on the ground that they were
engaged for intermittent work through a Contractor.
The period of engagement of the
representationists/petitioners herein has not been
considered in the order impugned nor any record of
their engagement has been produced before the
Court alongwith the counter affidavit filed in the
present proceeding. This Court is, therefore,
constrained to form an opinion that the order
impugned dated 8.11.2017 is a result of non-
application of mind by the Chief Executive Officer,
NOIDA.
The rejection of claim for regularization of the
3
petitioners herein is not within the purview of the
Regularization Rules’ 2016 or the Government order
dated 24.2.2016. For the aforesaid, the order
impugned dated 8.11.2017 passed by the Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer cannot be sustained
and is hereby set aside.
It is further provided that the Chief Executive
Officer, NOIDA, Ghaziabad, U.P shall consider the
claim of the petitioners afresh for regularization
keeping in view of the observations made
hereinabove, strictly in the light of the qualifying
conditions of the Government Order dated
24.2.2016 or the Regularization Rules’ 2016, as on
the date of submission of their representation
rejected vide order dated 8.11.2017.
As to the other qualifying conditions under the
Government Order/Regularisation Rules such as
cut off date, qualification etc., the same would have
to be considered by the competent Authority i.e.
Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA considering the facts
of individual case of each petitioner herein.
In any case, a fresh, reasoned and speaking
order, in accordance with law, shall be passed by
the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA within a period
of three months from the date of production of the
certified copy of this order keeping in view of all the
observations made hereinabove specifically that the
petitioners cannot be treated as Contract Labour
hired through registered
Contractor/Supplier/Service Provider in absence of
a valid Contract for such services, in accordance
with the scheme of CLRA Act and that deviation
from the procedure prescribed therein is not
permitted, for the NOIDA being a local Authority
falling within the purview of the Act’ 1970.”
8. It could thus be seen that the learned Single Judge of
the High Court, by the said order, found that the rejection of
4
the respondents’ claim solely on the ground that they were
employed for intermittent work through a contractor was not
sustainable. The High Court, therefore, observed that the
order dated 08.11.2017 passed by the CEO was issued,
without proper application of mind and as such was not
sustainable.
9. While setting aside the order passed by the CEO, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the CEO to
consider the claim of the respondents afresh for
regularization keeping in view the observations made by the
High Court and in light of the qualifying conditions of the
Government Order dated 24.02.2016 or conditions
prevailing in 2016 as on the date of submission of their
representations, which were earlier rejected by the order
dated 08.11.2017.
10. Learned Single Judge of the High Court further clearly
directed that insofar as other qualifying conditions under the
Government Order/Regularization Rules such as cut-off date,
qualification etc., were concerned, the same would have to be
considered by the competent authority i.e. the CEO, NOIDA
while considering the facts of individual case of each
5
respondent herein.
11. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, therefore,
finally directed the consideration of each of the respondents’
claim independently. The only rider was that their claims
should not be rejected solely on the ground that they were
contract labourers hired through a Registered
Contractor/Supplier/Service Provider.
12. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, it appears that a
Committee was constituted by NOIDA. On the basis of the
report of the Committee, the CEO passed orders dated
17.08.2021,18.08.2021 and 19.08.2021.
13. While considering the claims of the respondents, the
present appellant went through various aspects, including:
(i) The qualification of the respondents vis-a-vis
Government Order dated 24.02.2016.
(ii) The Report of the Committee.
(iii) The effect of the Government Order dated
18.9.2018
(iv) The additional financial burden on the NOIDA.
14. After considering these aspects, the respondents’ claim
came to be rejected.
15. Alleging that the orders dated 17.08.2021, 18.08.2021
6
and 19.08.2021 were passed in contempt of the order passed
by the High Court dated 24.02.2020, a contempt petition
came to be filed.
16. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide the
impugned order dated 06.10.2021 came to the prima facie
conclusion that a case of contempt was made out to
prosecute the present appellant by framing charges.
17. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, the High
Court granted one last opportunity to the appellant to comply
with the Writ Court’s order in its letter and spirit, failing
which it was directed that the appellant would remain
present before the Court on the next date to show cause as to
why he may not be prosecuted under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
18. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
19. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General of India appearing for the appellant and Ms. V.
Mohana, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents.
20. Learned Solicitor General submits that the order dated
7
04.02.2020 required NOIDA to consider the claims of the
respondents afresh and to decide the same in accordance
with law by passing a reasoned order. He submits that in
pursuance to the said order, the claims of each of the
respondents were duly considered and rejected by passing
the speaking order.
21. It is, therefore, submitted that the contempt petition
itself was not tenable, inasmuch as there was no
disobedience of the directions issued vide order dated
04.02.2020.
22. Ms. Mohana, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the respondents have been
dragged into a series of litigation through no fault of their
own. It is submitted that the order dated 04.02.2020
contemplated the regularization of services of the
respondents. She submits that, however, the rejection of
their claims was once again based on the very same grounds
that had already been set aside by the High Court in its order
dated 04.02.2020. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned
Single Judge of the High Court has rightly passed the
impugned order summoning the present appellant.
8
23. Ms. Mohana, submits that, in any case, the contempt
petition itself is still pending and has not yet been finally
decided by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and,
therefore, the present appeal itself is not tenable.
24. As stated hereinabove, what the order dated 04.02.2020
contemplated, was a consideration of the respondents’ claim.
Liberty was given to the appellant to consider the case of the
each of the respondents, including their qualification, cut-off
date, applicability of the Government Orders, Rules, etc. The
only rider was that the respondents regularization was not to
be denied solely on the ground that they were employed
through a contractor.
25. By the orders dated 17.08.2021, 18.08.2021 and
19.08.2021, of which the contempt is alleged, the appellant
rejected the respondents’ claims on four grounds, as already
noted herein.
26. One of the considerations was the applicability of the
Government Order of 2018. The NOIDA found that the
respondents were not qualified under the said order and
further that would be an additional burden on the NOIDA if
the claim of the respondents was considered favourably and
9
their services were regularized. It also found that the
respondents’ case was not covered under the Government
Order dated 24.02.2016.
27. It could thus be clearly seen that the respondents’ claim
was not rejected solely on the ground that they were
employed through a contractor but was rejected after a
thorough consideration of several other grounds.
28. In that view of the matter, the orders dated 17.08.2021,
18.08.2021 and 19.08.2021 must be considered as
compliance with the directions issued under the order dated
04.02.2020.
29. However, by the impugned order, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court had come to a conclusion that the
appellant is in contempt of the Court and directed the
compliance with the order in its letter and spirit.
30. We find that the contempt itself was not tenable,
inasmuch as the directions issued in order dated 04.02.2020
had been complied with. If the respondents were aggrieved
by the reasoning given by the appellant in orders dated
17.08.2021, 18.08.2021 and 19.08.2021, then, at the most,
it could have given rise to fresh cause of action for
10
challenging the said orders.
31. No doubt that the appellant has unnecessarily referred
to SLP(C) No. 2452 of 2020 in ground (E) while rejecting the
said claim.
32. We are, therefore, inclined to delete the said ground
portion from the orders dated 17.08.2021, 18.08.2021 and
19.08.2021, which reads as under:
“E. In respect of similar cases related to
Greater Noida.
In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2452 of 2020,
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority,
Vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors. filed by Greater Noida,
Authority against the order passed by Hon’ble, High
Court in a similar matter to that of the present case
in which the Hon’ble High Court, directed the
Greater Noida Authority to regularize, the drivers
who were working on contract basis, through
suppliers and the order in Contempt Application in
the aforesaid matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
vide order dated 31.1.2021, has stayed the effect
operation of the orders passed by Hon’ble High
Court in Contempt Applications –
“Issue notice returnable on 6.3.2020.
Pleadings to be completed in the
meanwhile. There shall be stay of
contempt proceeding in the meanwhile.”
It is thus clear from the above that in a similar case,
the Hon’ble Court has not permitted regularization
in a similarly situated Institution i.e. Greater Noida
Authority and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
pleased to stay the contempt order passed by
Hon’ble High Court.”11
33. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The
impugned order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court is quashed and set aside.
34. It is, however, made clear that the respondents would
be at liberty to challenge the orders dated 17.08.2021,
18.08.2021 and 19.08.2021.
35. If such a challenge is made, the same would be
considered in accordance with law.
36. It is further clarified that while adjudicating any such
challenge, the Court shall not take into account the above
quoted portion that has been directed to be deleted from the
orders dated 17.08.2021, 18.08.2021 and 19.08.2021.
Moreover, for the period during which the respondents were
pursuing this matter before this Court, they shall be entitled
to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
37. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
………………………… CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)
……………………………..J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 29, 2025.
12