Introduction
The long-running litigation concerning the regularization of contractual employees engaged under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) has reached another significant judicial milestone. By its order dated 31 July 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39943 of 2026 filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 3 of 2025.
After hearing counsel appearing for both parties, the Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the petition and observed that it did not find any good ground to entertain the Special Leave Petition. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending applications.
This order represents the latest judicial development in the CGHS Regularization litigation, which has progressed through the Labour Court, the Delhi High Court (Single Judge), the Division Bench, the Review Petition, and finally the Supreme Court.
Background of the Litigation
The dispute arises from claims made by contractual employees engaged in connection with the computerisation and functioning of the Central Government Health Scheme. The employees sought regularization of their services and related reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The dispute was first adjudicated by the Labour Court, which passed an award on 23 August 2019. The award was thereafter challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C.) 2133/2020.
By judgment dated 29 July 2024, the learned Single Judge examined the challenge to the Labour Court Award. The Court considered the documentary and oral evidence relating to the engagement of the workmen, the nature of their duties, the extent of supervision and control exercised by the authorities, and the findings recorded by the Labour Court before deciding the writ petition.
Subsequently, the matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench through LPA No. 3 of 2025, resulting in a judgment dated 17 December 2025. That judgment later became the subject matter of both a Review Petition before the Delhi High Court and a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Review Petition Before the Delhi High Court
Following the Division Bench judgment, the respondents filed Review Petition No. 46 of 2026, contending that certain observations in the earlier judgment proceeded on an incorrect factual assumption regarding their service status at the time they approached the Labour Court.
The Division Bench accepted that corrections were required in respect of specific factual observations contained in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 61 of the earlier judgment. The Court substituted the relevant portions to accurately reflect that the employees were still in service when they invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Importantly, while directing these substitutions, the Division Bench expressly clarified that the original judgment dated 17 December 2025 would remain unmodified and continue to operate in all other respects. The Court also clarified that the respondents’ eligibility for regularization was to be examined with reference to the date of their initial engagement, subject to the conditions recorded in the order.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
The matter thereafter reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39943 of 2026, arising out of the Delhi High Court judgment in LPA No. 3 of 2025.
The petition came up for hearing on 31 July 2026 before a Bench comprising:
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
The petitioners were represented by Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned Additional Solicitor General, along with the advocates whose appearances are recorded in the proceedings.
The respondents were represented by Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned Senior Advocate, together with the advocates recorded in the order, including Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
After hearing the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the Supreme Court first condoned the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition. The Court thereafter considered whether the case warranted interference with the judgment of the Delhi High Court.
The operative portion of the order records that the Supreme Court did not find any good ground to entertain the Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Court further directed that all pending applications, if any, would also stand disposed of.
Unlike detailed judgments that undertake an elaborate examination of factual or legal issues, the present order is brief and records the Court’s decision not to grant leave in the matter. Consequently, the proceedings before the Supreme Court arising from the Delhi High Court’s judgment came to an end with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.
Legal Significance of the Supreme Court Order
The order dated 31 July 2026 marks the latest judicial development in the CGHS Regularization litigation and completes the present round of proceedings before the Supreme Court.
From a legal reporting perspective, it is important to accurately understand the nature of the order. The Supreme Court has recorded that it did not find any good ground to entertain the Special Leave Petition and consequently dismissed it. The order does not contain an elaborate discussion on the merits of the controversy.
As a practical consequence of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 3 of 2025, as subsequently clarified by the order passed in Review Petition No. 46 of 2026, continues to remain operative. Readers should, however, distinguish between the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition and a detailed judgment delivered after grant of leave. This article therefore reports the procedural outcome exactly as reflected in the official court record, without attributing findings beyond the scope of the order.
The litigation also demonstrates the procedural journey available in service and labour disputes—from adjudication before the Labour Court, judicial review before the High Court, appellate scrutiny by the Division Bench, limited review jurisdiction to correct factual errors, and finally the invocation of the Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Complete Litigation Timeline
| Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| 23 August 2019 | Labour Court passed the Award concerning the claims of the CGHS workmen. |
| 29 July 2024 | Delhi High Court decided W.P.(C.) 2133/2020 challenging the Labour Court Award. |
| 17 December 2025 | Delhi High Court Division Bench delivered judgment in LPA No. 3 of 2025. |
| 10 July 2026 | Review Petition No. 46 of 2026 disposed of with corrections to specific factual observations while clarifying that the original judgment would continue to operate in all other respects. |
| 31 July 2026 | Supreme Court dismissed SLP (Civil) Diary No. 39943 of 2026 after observing that it did not find any good ground to entertain the petition. |
Case Details
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39943 of 2026
Arising out of: LPA No. 3 of 2025 (High Court of Delhi)
Parties: The Director & Others v. Ram Chander & Others
Date of Order: 31 July 2026
Coram:
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Subject: Special Leave Petition arising from the CGHS Regularization litigation
Final Order: Delay condoned; Special Leave Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
Related Articles
To understand the complete judicial journey of this matter, readers may also refer to:
- CGHS Contract Workers Regularization Judgment – Delhi High Court (LPA No. 3 of 2025)
- CGHS Regularization Case Review – Delhi High Court disposes of Review Petition No. 46 of 2026
Together with the present article, these publications provide a chronological account of the litigation from the Labour Court to the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court marks the latest stage in the judicial proceedings arising out of the CGHS Regularization dispute. While the Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition, the order should be understood in the precise terms recorded by the Court. Accordingly, this judicial update is intended to provide an accurate account of the proceedings based solely on the official court record and to place the latest development within the broader litigation history.
View Complete Supreme Court Order (PDF)
📄 Download the Official Supreme Court Order (PDF) (31 July 2026)
Disclaimer
This content is published solely for legal information, legal education, and reporting of judicial developments. It is based on the official court records referred to in this article and is intended to promote public legal awareness. This publication does not constitute legal advice, create an advocate–client relationship, or amount to solicitation or advertisement under the applicable Bar Council of India Rules, including Rule 36 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette. Readers are advised to refer to the official court records or seek independent legal advice for specific legal issues.