[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sandeep Singh Kurrey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:9821
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2020 of 2026
1 - Sandeep Singh Kurrey S/o Jhabbu Lal Kurrey Aged About 37 Years Presently
Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur C.G.
2 - Smt. Pushpa Pandey W/o Shri D. Pandey Aged About 46 Years Presently
Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Ambikapur
District Surguja C.G.
3 - Brijesh Kumar Painkra S/o Shri Leeladhar Painkra Aged About 36 Years
Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture,
Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.
4 - Bhuvneshwer Prasad Gautam S/o Shri Ramnaresh Gautam Aged About 38
Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director
Horticulture, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G.
5 - Khelan Prasad Prajapati S/o Shri Ramdas Prajapati Aged About 40 Years
Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture,
Odgi Block District Surajpur C.G.
6 - Rajpati Yadav S/o Shri Kunjlal Prasad Yadav Aged About 43 Years Presently
Working As Field Consultant In Government Garden, Purandih, O/o Assistant
Director Horticulture, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.
7 - Manjeet Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Deenanath Yadav Aged About 31 Years
Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture,
Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G.
2
8 - Lupteshwar Gajel S/o Shri Narpati Gajel Aged About 42 Years Presently Working
As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Jagdalpur, District
Bastar C.G.
9 - Basant Singh Yadav S/o Shri Johan Singh Yadav Aged About 45 Years Presently
Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Jagdalpur,
District Bastar C.G.
10 - Chetan Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bhojlal Sahu Aged About 35 Years Presently
Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Korba,
District Korba C.G.
11 - Anita Mishra W/o Suryamani Mishra, Aged About 40 Years Presently Working
As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Mungeli, District
Mungeli C.G.
12 - Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Shri D.R. Sahu Aged About 45 Years Presently Working
As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Balod, District Balod
C.G.
13 - Khomlal Sahu S/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years Presently
Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Jashpur,
District Jashpur C.G.
14 - Parmanand Jangde S/o Shri Punaram Jangde Aged About 38 Years Presently
Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Jagdalpur,
District Bastar C.G.
15 - Amit Soni S/o Shri Nirmal Soni Aged About 36 Years Presently Working As
Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Korba, District Korba
C.G.
16 - Yuvraj Singh S/o Shri Angad Singh Aged About 37 Years Presently Working As
Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Mungeli, District Mungeli
C.G.
17 - Anisha Pathak D/o Shri B.N. Pathak Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As
Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Ambikapur, District
Sarguja C.G.
3
18 - Mithlesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohanlal Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As
Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Raipur, District Raipur
C.G.
... Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Agriculture Production Commissioner And
Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G.
2 - Directorate Of Horticulture And Farm Forestry, Through- Director, Indravati
Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G.
3 - Call Me Services, Through- Director, C-101/5, 1st Floor, Tagore Nagar, Raipur,
District Raipur C.G.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents-State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Government Advocate
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
25/02/2026
1. Petitioners has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities,
especially respondent no.1 & 2 to consider the claim
of the petitioners for regularization / absorption on
the vacant sanctioned post of Rural Horticulture
Development Officer as per the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India
decided on 20.12.24.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities,
especially respondent no.1 & 2 to consider and
decide the pending representations of the petitioners
within stipulated time interval, in the interest of
justice
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to take final
decision upon the letter dated 05.08.24 issued by the
State Government within stipulated time interval in
the interest of justice.
4
10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble
Court may think proper in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly he
granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are working
as Field Consultant (Technical Graduate) under the National Horticulture
Mission managed and controlled by the Respondents No. 1 & 2. He
contended that the petitioners are working since last about more than 10
years on the said post and they have made several requests to the
authorities for regularization of their services, based upon which, a
proposal was forwarded by the Respondent No. 2/Director seeking an
opinion from the State Government as to whether the petitioners can be
engaged on contract basis in the instant services and thereafter, the State
Government has sought further classificatory proposal on 05.08.2024.
Since the claim of petitioners is pending consideration before the
Respondent No. 1, final decision could not be taken on the claim of
petitioners.
3. He contended that petitioners have submitted representation on
19.11.2025 before the Respondents No. 1 which is also pending
consideration and therefore, direction be issued to the Respondent No. 1
to consider the claim of petitioners for regularization of their services.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would
submit that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is
only seeking a direction to Respondent No. 1 to consider and take
decision on the representation dated 19.11.2025 submitted by the
petitioners, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. He submits that
if the representation is pending consideration, it will be considered and
decided in accordance with law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
5
6. The grievance of petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that they are
continuously in employment since last about more than 10 years with the
Respondents/State. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 considering that the daily-wage employee/temporary
employee will not be discriminated to the extent of wages/salary as paid
to the regular employees has considered the regularization of employees
who have been employed by the employer, their service is not illegal but
irregular and is continuous employment since about more than 10 years
and observed thus:-
" 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA
(supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N.
NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15
above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and the employees
have continued to work for ten years or more but without
the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The
question of regularization of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in the
light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases
above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that
context, the Union of India, the State Governments and
their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as
a one time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in
duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of
courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that
regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant
sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases
where temporary employees or daily wagers are being
now employed. The process must be set in motion within
six months from this date. We also clarify that
regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice,
need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further by-passing of the constitutional
requirement and regularizing or making permanent,
those not duly appointed as per the constitutional
scheme."
7. After the decision in case of Umadevi (Supra), State Government has
issued circular addressing to all the stakeholders of different departments
of the State of Chhattisgarh on 05.03.2008 with the subject that
regularization of Class III and Class IV employees working as daily-wage
6
employee or temporary employee. In the aforementioned notification, it is
mentioned that the procedure for regularization of services of Class III
and Class IV employees working as daily-wage or temporary employees.
Paragraph 2 of the said circular is extracted below for ready reference:-
" 2. उपरोक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के निर्णय के परिप्रेक्ष्य में राज्य
शासन द्वारा सहानुभूतिपूर्वक विचार कर दैनिक वेतन भोगी/तदर्थ रूप से
नियुक्त कर्मचारियों की नियमितिकरण की प्रक्रिया निम्नानुसार निर्धारित
की जाती है :-
(i) व्यक्ति, रिक्त/स्वीकृ त नियमित पद के विरुद्ध पदस्थ किया गया हो और
विभागीय भरती नियमों में निर्धारित शैक्षणिक एवं अन्य योग्यताएं रखता हो
तो ही नियमित करने योग्य है।
(ii) दैनिक वेतन पर, तदर्थ रूप से अथवा कलेक्टर दर पर (दैनिक वेतन
पर) जब नियुक्ति हुई तब सेअब तक उस पद की आवश्यकता रही है और
आगे भी उस पद की आवश्यकता हो तो संबंधित पद के विरुद्ध ऐसे व्यक्ति
को पदस्थ मानते हुए विचार किया जा सके गा।
(iii) संबंधित व्यक्ति ने दैनिक वेतन भोगी (चाहे कलेक्टर दर पर) के रूप में
अथवा तदर्थ रूप में दिनांक 31-12-1997 तक लगातार उसी पद पर या
समकक्ष पद पर कार्य किया हो के संबंध में लगातार कार्य करना (सेवा देना)
तब ही माना जायेगा यदि प्रत्येक वर्ष में कु ल सेवा ब्रेक एक माह से अधिक
की न हो। लगातार सेवा के लिये हड़ताल की अवधि सेवा में ब्रेक नहीं मानी
जायेगी ।
(iv) दिनांक 31-12-1997 तक दैनिक वेतन पर अथवा तदर्थ नियुक्त एवं
कार्यरत तृतीय एवं चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारियों का नियमितिकरण किया जाय ।
(v) व्यक्ति यदि कार्यभारित पदों के विरुद्ध कार्यरत है तो कार्यभारित पद
पर ही नियमित किया जाए नियमित पद के विरुद्ध कार्यरत हो तो नियमित
पद पर ही नियमित किया जाए।
(vi) छत्तीसगढ़ लोक सेवा (अनुसूचित जातियों, अनुसूचित जनजातियों,
और अन्य पिछड़े वर्गों के लिये आरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1994 का पालन
किया जावे अर्थात् दैनिक वेतन भोगी/तदर्थ रूप में कार्यरत व्यक्ति जिस
वर्ग से संबंधित है रोस्टर के अनुसार उसी बिन्दु के समक्ष उसका
नियमितिकरण किया जाये एवं रोस्टर में अनुसूचित जाति, अनुसूचित
जनजाति, अन्य पिछड़े वर्ग के बिन्दु यदि उम्मीदवार के अभाव में रिक्त
रहते हैं तो भविष्य में होने वाली रिक्तियों की पूर्ति आरक्षित बिन्दुओं के
लिये प्राथमिकता के आधार पर बैकलाग की पूर्ति की तरह की जायेगी।
(vii) नियमितिकरण स्वीकृ त एवं रिक्त पद पर ही किया जाएगा । इस हेतु
जिन विभागों में आवश्यक हो वहां सांख्येतर पद निर्मित किये जायें। यदि
पद ही कलेक्टर दर पर स्वीकृ त हो तो स्वीकृ त पदों (दैनिक वेतन पर) को
नियमित वेतनमान में परिवर्तित (सृजित) करना होगा।
(viii) परिपत्र जारी होने के बाद शासकीय विभागों द्वारा नियमितिकरण के
आदेश जिस दिन जारी किये जायेंगे उसी दिनांक से ही नियमित कर्मचारी
7
माने जावेंगे। पूर्व के किसी दिनांक से नहीं। पदक्रम सूची में इनके नाम
आपसी वरिष्ठता अनुसार एनब्लाक सबसे नीचे रखे जायेंगे।
(ix) उपरोक्तानुसार नियमित रूप से नियुक्ति दी गई व्यक्तियों की आपसी
वरिष्ठता दैनिक वेतन भोग कर्मचारी/कलेक्टर दर पर, अथवा तदर्थ रूप से
कार्यभार ग्रहण के दिनांक के आधार प निर्धारित की जावेगी । वरिष्ठताक्रम
निर्धारित करते समय यदि एक से अधिक व्यक्ति एक दिनांक में नियुक्त
किये गये हों तो उनमें से जो आयु में अधिक होगा उसे वरिष्ठ माना जाएगा."
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India
& Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 while considering the
claim of part-time/ad hoc employees appointed as Safaiwale, Khalasi who
earlier engaged in CWC Establishment at Faridabad had observed thus:-
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has
led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements,
often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair
treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting
workers and undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness
and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors
the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also
sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India
is a founding member, has consistently advocated for
employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The
ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages
companies to provide stable employment and to observe
obligations concerning employment stability and social
security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a
leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in
contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term
unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent
example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences
of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits.
In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as
independent contractors, thereby denying them employee
benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law
employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular
employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have
increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary
8
employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding
payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits.
This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the
work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker,
should determine employment status and the corresponding
rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying
such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair
treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted
forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or
seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism
to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:
\• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for
work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning
of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or
"contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently
dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present
case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice
and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity,
regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often
find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between them and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
\• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly
resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary
employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers
with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation
but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as
pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave,
even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social
security subjects them and their families to undue hardship,
especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail
the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments
adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its
principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny
legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment
aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular"
appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular
9
appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts
and had served continuously for more than ten years, should
be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately
reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to
procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the
judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where
regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts
the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it
against employees who have rendered indispensable services
over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their
roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes
the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government
institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns
with international standards and sets a positive precedent for
the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals
are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court
and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is
allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;ii. The
appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their
services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall
not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the
period they have not worked for but would be entitled to
continuity of services for the said period and the same would
be counted for their post-retiral benefits."
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State
of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly deprecated
the culture of "ad-hocism" adopted by States in their capacity as
employers. Hon'ble Supreme Court also criticized the practice of
outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade
regular employment obligations, observing that such measures
10
perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair
and lawful engagement practices.
10.Recently, in SLP (C) No.30762/2024, parties being Bhola Nath vs
State of Jharkhand & ors, decided on 31.1.2026, Hon'ble
Supreme Court after referring its earlier decisions on the very issue,
has concluded thus:-
"13.6. This Court has, on several occasions,
deprecated the practice adopted by States of
engaging employees under the nominal labels of
"part-time", "contractual" or "temporary" in
perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not
regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of
India10, this Court underscored that government
departments must lead by example in ensuring fair
and stable employment, and evolved the test of
examining whether the duties performed by such
temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day
functioning of the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam11, and Vinod Kumar
v. Union of India12, this Court cautioned against a
mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra)
to deny regularization to temporary employees in
the absence of statutory rules. It was held that
Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to
legitimise exploitative engagements continued for
years without undertaking regular recruitment. The
Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a
distinction between appointments that are "illegal"
and those that are merely "irregular", the latter
being amenable to regularization upon fulfillment of
the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.13, this Court
strongly deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism"
adopted by States in their capacity as employers.
The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or
informalizing recruitment as a means to evade
regular employment obligations, observing that
such measures perpetuate precarious working
conditions while circumventing fair and lawful
engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-
time employees, such as the appellants, constitute
an integral part of the edifice upon which the
machinery of the State continues to function. They
11
are not merely ancillary to the system, but form
essential components thereof. The equality
mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires
that their service be reciprocated in a manner free
from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the
State affecting the careers and livelihood of such
part-time and contractual employees are guided by
fairness and reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-
State's contention that the mere contractual
nomenclature of the appellants' engagement
denudes them of constitutional protection. The
State, having availed of the appellants' services on
sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a
due process of selection and having consistently
acknowledged their satisfactory performance,
cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a
speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such
engagement by taking refuge behind formal
contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly
arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the
State to act as a model employer, and fails to
withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing
paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as
follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in
continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant
posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of
contractual engagement and thereafter denying
them consideration for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent
reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims
for regularization cannot override constitutional
guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does
not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and
contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary
State action from constitutional scrutiny.
12
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on
contractual labels or mechanical application of
Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or
to discard long-serving employees in a manner
inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional
governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the
respondent-State to forthwith regularize the
services of all the appellants against the sanctioned
posts to which they were initially appointed. The
appellants shall be entitled to all consequential
service benefits accruing from the date of this
judgment .
11. Following the decision in the case of Jaggo (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 221 while considering the claim of
regularization of the appellants therein had observed thus:-
"12. The evidence, including documentary material and
undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen
performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer's
municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks,
horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such
work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project-
based. Reliance on a general "ban on fresh recruitment"
cannot be used to deny labor protections to long-serving
workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of
Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the
notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not
intermittent.
13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning,
general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as
from regular Gardeners but still compensating them
inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent
Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour
practice. The principle of "equal pay for equal work,"
repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be
casually disregarded when workers have served for
extended periods in roles resembling those of
permanent employees. Long-standing assignments
under the Employer's direct supervision belie any
notion that these were mere short-term casual
engagements.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over several
years, sometimes spanning more than a decade.
Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full,
the Employer's failure to furnish such records--
despite directions to do so--allows an adverse
inference under well-established labour
13
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in
nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing
municipal requirements year after year cannot be
dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in
the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At
this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the
broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment
practices as done by a recent judgment of this court
in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following
paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects
workers' rights and job security. In the private sector,
the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair
treatment. Such practices have been criticized for
exploiting workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the
principles of fairness and justice, bear an even
greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only
mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig
economy but also sets a concerning precedent that
can erode public trust in governmental operations.
.........
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels : Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination : Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.14
• Lack of Career Progression : Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield : Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits : Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations.
Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness :
the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles.
Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or 15 meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms."
12.In the above facts of the case and the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and further considering that the petitioners have submitted representation dated 19.11.2025 before the Respondents No. 1 raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition, in the opinion of this Court, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the Respondent No. 1 to consider and take decision on the representation dated 19.11.2025 16 as submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, keeping in mind the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, preferably within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of the representation.
13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Digitally
SHUBHAM signed by
DEY SHUBHAM
DEY
Dey