Archive · 18 Sep 2026
CGHS Workers’ Case Challenges Government Outsourcing and Contractor Practices
A group of 267 workers has worked at government health facilities since 2006.
They were hired through different contractors, but their jobs and supervisors stayed largely the same.
The workers say CGHS selected, transferred and supervised them directly.
A Labour Court decided that CGHS was really their employer.
It ordered that they be treated like regular government employees and receive related benefits.
The Delhi High Court agreed that they were CGHS employees.
However, it limited their financial benefits to the period after August 23, 2019.
The workers are now asking the Supreme Court to restore benefits from the beginning of their employment.
A dispute involving 267 CGHS workers has reached the Supreme Court over their employment status and financial benefits.
The workers say they performed the same jobs continuously from 2006 despite repeated changes in contractors.
The Labour Court found that CGHS exercised direct control and that the outsourcing contracts were a “sham and camouflage.”
The Delhi High Court upheld the finding that the workers were CGHS employees and ordered their regularisation.
A High Court division bench limited monetary benefits to the period after August 23, 2019, prompting the workers’ Supreme Court challenge.
- Who
- The 267 Data Entry Operators and Operation Managers, CGHS, the contractors, and NICSI are involved; the workers are represented by lawyer Rajiv Agarwal.
- What
- The workers are challenging the Delhi High Court’s restriction of their monetary benefits after courts found that CGHS was their direct employer.
- When
- The workers say they have served since 2006; the Labour Court issued its award on August 23, 2019, the High Court division bench ruled in December 2025, and the case was published on September 18, 2026.
- Where
- The workers were deployed at Central Government Health Scheme establishments, and the case has proceeded through the Labour Court, Delhi High Court and Supreme Court.
- Why
- The workers seek wages and consequential benefits from their initial engagement rather than only from August 23, 2019.
Workers’ Position
CGHS’s Challenge
Who was the real employer?
Workers’ Position
The workers argue that CGHS was their principal employer because it selected, supervised, transferred and disciplined them, while contractors changed repeatedly.
CGHS’s Challenge
CGHS challenged the finding that the workers were directly employed by the department; the articles do not state a detailed public explanation of its position.
Financial benefits
Workers’ Position
The workers seek wages and consequential benefits from their initial engagement, beginning in 2006.
CGHS’s Challenge
The High Court division bench retained regularisation but restricted monetary benefits to the period beginning August 23, 2019.
Use of contractors
Workers’ Position
The workers’ lawyer says repeated contractor changes can allow the government to avoid labour-law obligations and keep employment terms irregular.
CGHS’s Challenge
CGHS relied on NICSI as an intermediary or vendor between the department and outsourced manpower, according to the case record.
- Workers involved
- 267 CGHS workers
- Employment period
- Since 2006
- Job roles
- Data Entry Operators and Operation Managers
- Contractor changes
- Approximately 12 vendors changed between 2006 and 2014
- Labour Court finding
- The contracts were a “sham and camouflage,” and an employer-employee relationship existed between CGHS and the workers
- High Court ruling
- The workers were recognised as CGHS employees and directed to be regularised, but monetary benefits were limited
- Disputed benefits date
- The High Court division bench limited financial relief to the period beginning August 23, 2019