Introduction
The CGHS Regularization Case has witnessed another important development with the Delhi High Court disposing of Review Petition No. 46 of 2026 arising out of LPA 3/2025. By its order dated 10 July 2026, the Division Bench corrected certain factual observations contained in its earlier judgment while clarifying that the original decision shall continue to operate in all other respects.
The Review Petition was filed to seek correction of specific factual observations regarding the service status of the employees at the time they approached the Labour Court. After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court substituted the relevant portions of the earlier judgment and disposed of the Review Petition without disturbing the substantive conclusions reached in the appellate proceedings.
This article discusses the latest order, its background, the issues raised before the Court, and the legal significance of the clarification issued by the Division Bench.
Background of the Litigation
The present proceedings form part of a long-standing service dispute involving employees engaged under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) who sought regularization of their services.
The dispute was initially adjudicated by the Labour Court. The award was thereafter challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 2133/2020, where the learned Single Judge upheld the Labour Court’s findings by judgment dated 29 July 2024.
The matter subsequently reached the Division Bench through LPA 3/2025, resulting in a judgment dated 17 December 2025. Following that judgment, the respondents filed Review Petition No. 46 of 2026, seeking correction of certain factual observations contained in the appellate judgment.
The present order dated 10 July 2026 disposes of that Review Petition.
Proceedings Before the Delhi High Court
The Review Petition was heard by a Division Bench comprising:
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta
- Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
The appellants were represented through the learned Central Government Standing Counsel along with the advocates recorded in the order.
The respondents were represented by Mr. Rajiv Agarwal along with the learned advocates whose appearance is recorded in the order.
Why Was the Review Petition Filed?
The Review Petition was filed on the ground that certain observations contained in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 61 of the earlier Division Bench judgment proceeded on an incorrect factual assumption that the employees had already been terminated before approaching the Labour Court.
The review petitioners submitted that the employees were, in fact, still in service when they invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and sought regularization. They requested the Court to correct the factual narration in the earlier judgment.
Findings of the Court
During the hearing, the Division Bench sought clarification from the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants. The Court recorded that it was fairly conceded that the respondents’ submission was correct and that the employees were still in service when they approached the Labour Court.
After considering the submissions, the Court held that the observations contained in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 61 of the earlier judgment required correction.
Accordingly, the Court substituted those portions of the judgment with revised text accurately reflecting the factual position emerging from the record.
Importantly, the Division Bench made it clear that except for these substitutions, the original judgment dated 17 December 2025 would remain unmodified and continue to operate in all other respects.
Clarification Regarding Eligibility
The respondents also expressed an apprehension that certain observations contained in paragraph 62 of the earlier judgment could be misunderstood while examining their eligibility for regularization.
Addressing this concern, the Court clarified that the intention of the earlier judgment was that the employees’ eligibility should be examined with reference to the date of their initial engagement, and not with reference to the date of the Labour Court award, subject to the conditions recorded in the order.
This clarification provides further guidance regarding the implementation of the earlier judgment.
Legal Significance of the Order
Although the Review Petition did not alter the ultimate outcome of the litigation, the order is procedurally significant.
It demonstrates that the High Court, while exercising review jurisdiction, may correct factual inaccuracies appearing on the face of the record without disturbing the substantive conclusions already reached in the appellate judgment.
The order also highlights the importance of maintaining factual accuracy in judicial proceedings and clarifies the context in which the earlier LPA judgment is to be understood.
For legal practitioners, employers, employees, and students of labour law, the decision provides useful insight into the scope of review jurisdiction and the manner in which factual corrections can be incorporated while preserving the operative directions of an earlier judgment.
Case Details
Court: High Court of Delhi
Case: REV. PET. 46/2026 in LPA 3/2025
Parties: The Director, Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) & Others v. Ram Chander & Others
Date of Order: 10 July 2026
Coram:
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta
- Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Subject: Review Petition in CGHS Regularization Case
Related Proceedings:
- Labour Court Award
- W.P.(C) 2133/2020
- LPA 3/2025
- Review Petition No. 46/2026
Appearance (as recorded in the order):
- For the Appellants: Mr. Shashank Bajpai, CGSC, with Ms. Shakun Sudha Shukla, Ms. Aashan Mehra, Mr. Vatsal Tripathi, Mr. Akshit Saxena and Mr. Govind Singh Chauhan, Advocates.
- For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Ms. Mohani Bhat, Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmei, Mr. N. Bhushan, Ms. Ekta Tomar, Mr. S. Sapra, Mr. Ishaan Goel and Mr. Siddharth Sapra, Advocates.
Related Article
Background: Read our earlier article on the Delhi High Court judgment concerning the CGHS Regularization Case to understand the complete history of the litigation before reading this latest update.
https://corpusjurisindia.com/cghs-contract-workers-regularization-judgment/
View Complete HC Jugment (PDF)
Disclaimer
This content is published solely for legal information, legal education, and reporting of judicial developments. It does not constitute legal advice, create a lawyer-client relationship, or amount to solicitation or advertisement under the applicable Bar Council of India Rules.