Bombay High Court
Ramkrishna Bhikaji Mohture vs District Superintending Agricultural ... on 21 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12907
1 J WP-7995-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.7995 OF 2019
PETITIONER : Ramkrishna Bhikaji Mohture,
Aged about 66 years Occ - Nil, Resident of
Pal Donagri, Tahsil Mohadi, District
Bhandara.
(Ori. Complainant)
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1 District Superintending Agricultural
Officer, Bhandara, Tahsil and District
Bhandara.
(Ori. Resp. No.1)
2 The Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer,
Gondia, Tahsil and District Gondia.
(Ori. Resp. No.2)
3 The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur, Tahsil and
District Nagpur.
(Ori. Resp. No.3)
Correct address of 4 Madhav Kukadkar,
R. No. is brought Aged about 63 years, Occu. Retired, R/o
on record vide its
order dated Kanhadgaon, Tah. Mohadi, Dist.
21.12.2022. Bhandara.
(Ori. Resp. No.4)
Amendment carried
out as per order
dated 21.12.2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr A. H. Daga, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms M. R. Kavimandan, AGP for Respondents/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
DATE : 21st NOVEMBER, 2025.
2 J WP-7995-2019.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties at
the stage of admission.
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner
challenges the order dated 08.08.2011 passed in Complaint (ULP)
No.8 of 2005 by the learned Labour Court, Bhandara and the
order dated 17.10.2012 passed in Revision (ULP) No.64 of 2011
by the learned Industrial Court, Bhandara.
4. The petitioner - employee, by filing Complaint
(ULP) No.8 of 2005, approached to the learned Labour Court,
Bhandara, against the oral termination order dated 08.02.2003.
The said complaint came to be dismissed. Against which Revision
No.64 of 2007 was filed before the Revisional Court, Bhandara.
The Revisional Court by its order dated 13.07.2007 remanded the
matter to the Labour Court to decide afresh. After remand of the
order, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the complaint of
the petitioner and instead of reinstatement, the compensation of
3 J WP-7995-2019.odt
Rs.50,000/- was granted. The said order was challenged by the
respondent No.1 herein by filing Revision (ULP) No.64 of 2011
and by the petitioner by filing Revision (ULP) No.59 of 2011
before the Industrial Court, Bhandara. After hearing both the
sides, the learned Industrial Court dismissed both the revisions.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Industrial Court, this
writ petition came to be filed by the present petitioner.
5. Mr. A. H. Daga, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the petitioner is already superannuated and now only
the question of granting monetary benefits remains. He further
submits that the petitioner had already worked for 31 years with
the respondent. The petitioner also proved before the Labour
Court that he had worked for 240 days in each calendar year,
which is sufficient, and therefore, both the Labour Court and
Industrial Court committed an error by not granting regularization
to the petitioner, in view of the fact that he worked as a daily wager
for 31 years.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pandurang
Sitaram Jadhav and others Vs State of Maharashtra Through its
4 J WP-7995-2019.odt
Dairy Manager and another, reported in [(2020) 17 SCC 393]
observed in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 as under:
"12. In view of the aforesaid facts as also the legal
pronouncements made subsequently, we have no doubt
that these appellants before us would be entitled to the
benefit of regularisation and mere delay in preferring the
claim would not come in their way except that the benefit
of regularisation would arise from the date the complaints
were filed.
13. The finding of an unfair labour practice by the Tribunal
has in fact been confirmed by the learned Single Judge in
the present case and the only two reasons for interference
by the Division Bench relating to Umadevi (3) case have
already been explained in the aforesaid subsequent
judgments.
14. We thus, direct the respondents to regularise the
appellants accordingly and the necessary orders be issued
within three months from the date of the order. The
benefits which the appellants would be entitled to should
also be remitted to the appellants within the same period
from the date of the complaints, though the earlier period
would be counted for the purpose of calculation of benefits
without the appellants being monetarily entitled for that
period."
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Shripal and
another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in (2025 SCC
OnLine SC 221) has observed in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 as
under:
"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
5 J WP-7995-2019.odt
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 dally-wage
engagement without continuity or 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 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
6 J WP-7995-2019.odt
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 similarly situated regular
employees in the past. To the extent that
sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are
require the Respondent Employer shall expedite all
necessary administrative processes to ensure these
longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on
daily wages contrary to statutory equitable norms".
8. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported
in (2025 SCC Online 1735) observed in paragraph 17 to 20, as
under:
"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that
the State (here referring to both the Union and the State
governments) is not a mere market participant but a
constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the
backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring
public functions. Where work recurs day after day and
year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality
in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The
long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary
labels corrodes confidence in public administration and
offends the promise of equal protection. Financial
stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is
not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty
to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-
hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State
7 J WP-7995-2019.odt
Departments must keep and produce accurate
establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing
arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why
they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts
where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the
record should show what alternatives were considered,
why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and
how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should
inform every decision affecting those who keep public
offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the
appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties,
and the material Indicating vacancies and comparator
regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary
posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with
effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the
High Court directed a fresh recommendation by
the Commission and a fresh decision by the State
on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this
purpose, the State and the successor establishment
(U.P. Education Services Selection Commission)
shall create supernumerary posts in the
corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or
equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard
or equivalent) without any caveats or
preconditions. On regularization, each appellant
shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the
regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of
last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall
be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay
scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and
promotion, service shall count from the date of
regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each
appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference
between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at
the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post
from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually
8 J WP-7995-2019.odt
paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date
of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may
be. Amounts already paid under previous interim
directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall
be released within three months and if in default,
the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest
at 6% per annum from the date of default until
payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has
already retired shall be granted regularization with
effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under
clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity
and other terminal dues. The revised pension and
terminal dues shall be paid within three months of
this Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant
No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during
pendency, his/her legal representatives on record
shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the
date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues
recalculated consistently with clause (1), within
three months of this Judgment.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P.
Education Services Selection Commission or the
prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit
of compliance before this Court within four
months of this Judgment.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such
matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling
"reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further
prolongs the insecurity for those who have already
laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have
learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed
timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional
employer, the State is held to a higher standard and
therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a
9 J WP-7995-2019.odt
sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement,
and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit.
Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence
but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes
livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative
scheme we have set here comprising of creation of
supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent
financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is
therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into
outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of grace,
but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India".
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jaggo vs.
Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826, has also observed in paragraphs 9, 20 and 26 as under:
"9. On the other hand, the following primary arguments
have been advanced before us on behalf of the
Respondents:
(i) ............
(ii) Absence of Sanctioned Posts : They assert that the
appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts.
According to the respondents, without sanctioned
vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or
absorption into the permanent workforce.
(iii) ............
(iv) ............
(v) .............
(vi) ............
20. .......... The said judgment sought to prevent
backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutional requirements. However, where appointments
were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where
employees had served continuously against the backdrop of
sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for
a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.
10 J WP-7995-2019.odt
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can,
over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or
temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In
a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union
of India, (2024) 1 SCR 1230, it was held that held that
procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose
appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed
the same duties as performed by the regular employee over
a considerable period in the capacity of the regular
employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been
reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely
with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants were
employed and have continued their service. The
reliance on procedural formalities at the outset
cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their promotion was
based on a specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection process
involving written tests and interviews, which
distinguishes their case from the appointments
through back door entry as discussed in the case of
Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of
considering certain appointments even if were not
made strictly in accordance with the prescribed
Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been
made illegally if they had followed the procedures
of regular appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present case..."
26. ........ It categorically held that employees in
irregular 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
11 J WP-7995-2019.odt
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."
10. The learned Labour Court recorded the finding that
the petitioner had worked for 31 years with the respondent.
Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have allowed the complaint
by conferring regularization in favor of the petitioner. Once the
petitioner proved that he worked for 31 years, and that too for 240
days each year, and further raised the issue of non-compliance with
Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the
Labour Court ought not to have refused to grant regularization;
however, the same was not considered by the Industrial Court.
Thus, I find that the order passed by the Labour Court needs to be
modified. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
A) Writ Petition No.7995 of 2019 is allowed.
B) The order dated 08.08.2011 passed by the learned
Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.8 of 2005 is
allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the
12 J WP-7995-2019.odt
services of the petitioner and grant the benefits of
regularization. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was
paid can be adjusted. As the petitioner is already
superannuated, the respondents are required to grant
monetary benefits by conferring the benefits of
regularization.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above said terms.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
TAMBE.
Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/11/2025 10:17:38
