1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The appellant challenges the common judgment and order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) Nos. 15405 of 2024, 15727 of 2024 and 5367 of 2024 titled "Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shilpi Gupta etc."

4. We are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be best served by disposing of the present appeal in the following terms:

                   (i) It is not in dispute that the respondent(s) have been working in different capacities over a period of time commencing, at least, from 26.01.2012.

                   (ii) In the year 2023, the terms of engagement were altered by the employer, i.e. the appellant herein.

                   (iii) Aggrieved thereby, the private respondent(s)/employee(s) approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal'), which, vide order dated 26.04.2024, while allowing the Original Application issued the following directions:

                   "(i) We hold and declare the engagement of the applicant as Stenographer Grade-D on ad-hoc/contract basis with intermittent break, as arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

                   (ii) Consequently, we direct the competent authority amongst the respondents to pass an order for the regular appointment of the applicant as Stenographer Grade-D with effect from the date of her initial appointment/engagement i.e. 22.11.2012.

                   (iii) To fix the pay of the applicant as a regular Stenographer Grade-D on 22.11.2012 and grant annual increment(s) as admissible, and also to consider her for promotion/grant of benefits under ACP/MACP scheme(s) as per the extant rules and instructions in this regard; and further to award her other entitlements such as leave, medical cover etc. besides the rest of the consequential benefits arising out of this order."

                   (iv) The appeal assailing the same, preferred by the employer, stands dismissed in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2025.

                   (v) We are inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment to a limited extent that the respondent(s) shall be deemed to have been regularized with effect from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal, i.e., the Central Administrative Tribunal.

                   (vi) For the purpose of inter se seniority, the respondent(s) shall be placed at the bottom of seniority list of the cadre as it existed on the said date.

                   (vii) The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

                                (viii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.