[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada ... vs Ranoji Yadavrao Hambarde on 23 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9080
1 WP-5234-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5234 OF 2023
1. Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Nanded at Vishnupuri,
Taluka and District Nanded,
Through its Registrar. ... Petitioner
(Orig. Respondent)
Versus
2. Shri Ranoji S/o. Yadavrao Hambarde,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Service,
2. Shri. Vishnu S/o Thakajirao Dhanawade,
Age: 48 years, Occu. Service,
3. Shri Sainath S/o Trimbakrao Mamidwar,
Age : 46 years, Occu. : Service,
4. Shri Pradip S/o Dadaro Bhosale,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Service,
5. Mr. Shaikh Hajibegum Abdul Aziz,
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Service,
6. Shri Sushil S/o Subhashrao Kharwadkar,
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Service,
7. Shri Subhash S/o Govindrao Thete,
Age : 48 years, Occu. : Service,
8. Shri Suresh S/o Pandurangrao More,
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Service,
9. Shri Ananda S/o. Gangaram Hambarde,
Age : 49 years, Occu. Service
2 WP-5234-2023.odt
All R/at Swami Ramanand Teerth Marahwada
University, Nanded, at Vishnupuri,
Taluka and District Nanded.
(Orig. Complainants)
10. Member,
Industrial Court Maharashtra
Bench at Jalna, Jalna Dist. Jalna ...Respondents
.....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10502 OF 2023
1. Ranoji so Yadavrao Hambarde,
Age: 48 years, Occu. Service.
2. Vishnu Thakajirao Dhanwade,
Age: 51 years, Occu. Service.
3. Sainath S/o Trimbakrao Mamidwar,
Age: 50 years, Occu. Service.
4. Pradip S/o Dadarao Bhosale,
Age: 52 years, Occu. Service.
5. Shaikh Hajibegum Abdul Aziz,
Age: 50 years, Occu. Service.
6. Sushil s/o Subhashrao Kharwadkar,
Age: 50 years, Occu. Service.
7. Subhash Govindrao Thete
Age: 51 years, Occu. Service.
8. Suresh Pandurang More,
Age: 51 years, Occu. Service.
9. Ananda S/o Gangaram Hambarde,
Age: 50 years, Occu. Service.
3 WP-5234-2023.odt
All Resident of Swami Ramanand
Teerth Marathwada University,
At Vishnupuri, Taluka and Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioners
(Orig. Complainants)
Versus
1. Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University,
Nanded at Vishnupuri,
Taluka and District Nanded, Through its Registrar.
2. Member,
Industrial Court Maharashtra,
Bench at Jalna, District Jalna. ...Respondents
(No.1 Original Respondent)
...
Appearance :
In Writ Petition Nos.10511/2023 and 10502/2023
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar (Senior Counsel) i/b Mr. Rahil R. Kazi,
Advocate for the Petitioner/s
Mr. U. S. Malte, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent No.2
In Writ Petition Nos.5233/2023 and 5234/2023
Mr. U. S. Malte, Advocate for the Petitioner/s
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar (Senior Counsel) i/b Mr. Rahil R. Kazi,
Advocate for the Petitioner/s
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DECIDED ON : 23.02.2026
4 WP-5234-2023.odt
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the parties at the stage of admission.
2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.10511/2023 and
10502/2023 are collectively referred as employees hereinafter for
the sake of brevity. The Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.5233/2023
and 5234/2023 is referred as University hereinafter for the sake of
brevity.
3. In Writ Petition No. 5233/2023, the University and in Writ
Petition No.10511/2023, the employees are assailing the order
dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Member Industrial Court,
Jalna in complaint (ULP) No.51/2010, whereby the complaint filed
by the employees came to be allowed partly, thereby directing
Employee - Dasrao Madhavrao Hambarde to be made permanent
from the date of presentation of complaint on the post he was
working as per his qualification, whereas other employees were
granted payment of regular wages along with all monetary and
other consequential benefits. The employees in Writ Petition
5 WP-5234-2023.odt
No.10511/2023 are assailing the said order to the extent of not
granting them permanency from the date of completion of 240
days of service. The University has filed Writ Petition No.
5233/2023 seeking setting aside the said order.
In Writ Petition No. 5234/2023, the University and in Writ
Petition No.10502/2023 the employees are assailing the order
dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Member Industrial Court,
Jalna in Complaint (ULP) No.46/2010, whereby the complaint filed
by the employees came to be allowed partly, thereby directing
employees to be made permanent from the date of presentation of
complaint on the post they were working as per their qualification,
whereas all the employees were granted payment of regular wages
along with all monetary and other consequential benefits. The
employees in Writ Petition No.10511/2023 are assailing the said
order to the extent of not granting them permanency from the date
of completion of 240 days of service. The University has filed Writ
Petition No. 5234/2023 seeking setting aside the said order.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
The employees were appointed temporarily and
6 WP-5234-2023.odt
periodically but in continuation with artificial breaks of few days.
They were paid salaries through money transfer to their respective
bank accounts. Their work was perennial in nature. The land of the
employees was acquired for establishment of University and as per
the existing policy, they were promised jobs in the University to one
of the member of their families. University was established in the
year 1994 and is autonomous and statutory body financed by the
State of Maharashtra. The employees were performing work
identical and equal in nature with the permanent employees
without any difference in quantity and quality compared to their
permanent counter parts. The employees had completed 240 days
of continuous service, they were educationally qualified and were
under the prescribed age limit for being entitled to the status of
permanent employees.
5. On refusal by the University to grant them permanency along
with all monetary and consequential benefits, they filed Complaint
(ULP) Nos.46/2010 and 51/2010 (for short 'respective Complaints)
before learned Industrial Court, Jalna which allowed the respective
Complaints partly, thereby granting the reliefs mentioned herein-
7 WP-5234-2023.odt
above.
6. Mr. U. S. Malte, the learned Counsel for University submits
that the University does not count as "Industry" within the meaning
of Section 2(j) of the Act as it is a statutory authority established
under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Public University Act, 1994.
The learned Industrial Court failed to consider the provision of
Section 8(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public University Act, 1994
which states that the University shall not create new posts of
teachers, officers and other employees without prior approval of
the State Government. Therefore it was not the fault of University
that it could not create posts and give permanency to the
employees. He submits that the order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.8067/2006 cannot be termed as a precedent and its
benefit cannot be extended to other employees as they do not stand
on same footing, because the employees in question were not in
the merit list prepared as per the Scheme. The letter dated
27.06.2003 issued by University to the Higher and Technical
Education Department was merely a proposal for sanctioning of
posts and it neither implies that the posts were vacant and
available nor does it create any right in favour of employees. It is
8 WP-5234-2023.odt
incumbent upon the employees to prove before learned Industrial
Court that the vacant and sanction posts were available at the time
of appointments and their appointments were duly made as per the
established procedure. The negative burden to prove this fact
cannot be shifted upon the University. The University had no
motive to deprive them of the right of permanency and it was not
the fault of the University that posts were not sanctioned by the
Government. If the employees wanted permanency they could have
participated in the Scheme but they did not do so. Therefore he
submits that the order passed by Industrial Court requires
interference by this Court to get the same quashed and set aside.
7. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following
judgments :
(i) Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and Anr. Vs.
Hon'ble Member and Others, 2015 (5) BCR 508.
(ii) Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Others,
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
(iii) Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian
Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408.
(iv) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh and Ors.,
(2007) 6 SCC 207.
9 WP-5234-2023.odt
(v) Lagwad Adhikari and Ors. Vs. Yasin Hamid Sayyad and Ors.,
2008 (1) BCR 527.
(vi) Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 1.
(vii) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs.
Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana.
8. He further submits that the employees, in the hope of being
permanent, waited for years together and became age barred for
obtaining employment elsewhere. In addition to this, they were
given threats of loss of employment if they took steps for being
permanent and were forced to work for lesser wages. Some of the
other employees had filed Complaint (ULP) No.157/2003 praying
permanency which was allowed and the same has been confirmed
by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8067/2006 dated 12.01.2010.
The present employees are similarly situated with those employees
and are therefore entitled to permanency. There was not a single
adverse report against any of the employees during the whole
tenure of the service and the same has remained unblemished. The
University had received sanction from the Government vide G.R.
issued by Higher and Technical Education Department dated
23.07.2009 to finally absorb 400 employees in view of the order
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8067/2006 dated
10 WP-5234-2023.odt
12.01.2010, according to which the University floated Scheme in
which some of the employees participated. The University
forwarded the request for granting permanency to employees vide
letter dated 27.06.2003.
9. He further submits that the employees come under the
category of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and the University comes
under the category of "Industry". He further submits that this Court
in Writ Petition No.12342/2015, Writ Petition No.12343/2015,
Writ Petition No.12344/2015, Writ Petition No.12345/2015 has
held that State of Maharashtra need not be a party to the respective
Complaints and the orders in those petitions has been confirmed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos. 36528/2016, 36530/2016,
36549/2016, 36525/2016. He submits that the University has itself
issued Experience Certificate to Employee namely Dasrao
Madhavrao Hambarde wherein it is stated that he was working on
daily wages between the period from 03.06.1996 to 30.09.1998
and from 01.10.1998 continuously onward, which itself proves the
case of the said Employee. He submits that the discriminatory
11 WP-5234-2023.odt
treatment given by the University is in violation of right to equality.
The Industrial Court ought to have granted permanency along with
consequential benefits from the date of their appointments or at
least from the date of completion of 240 days of continuous
service. Therefore, he submits that the employees are entitled to
permanency from the date of completion of 240 days of continuous
service.
10. Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Counsel instructed by
Mr. Rahil R. Kazi, the Counsel for employees submit that the
University comes in the category of "Industry" within the meaning
of Section 2(j) and employees come under the category of
"workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). The University receives
funds from the State of Maharashtra and therefore it comes under
the category of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. The employees performed work identical and
equal compared to the permanent employees without there being
any difference of quantity or quality. By implication, operation of
law and principle of equality, the employees are entitled to
12 WP-5234-2023.odt
permanency. Mere introduction of artificial breaks in the
employment do not abridge their right of permanency. It had never
happened that University lacked work and work was always. The
employees were working full time throughout the year since the
date of their joining. As the respective lands of employees were
acquired for establishment of University, they were asked to
nominate a person from their respective families for obtaining
employment with the University, accordingly some of the
employees were appointed. The employees are educationally and
academically qualified. They have completed requisite 240 days of
continuous service in each year and have thereby attained status of
permanency. It is settled position that University being State should
be a model employer. Some of the junior employees were granted
permanency to the exclusion of present employees by showing
partiality and favoritism, though all of them were performing equal
work.
11. Having gone through the impugned orders and rival
submissions of both the parties, there is no dispute regarding the
appointments of employees. As far as the issue of non-joinder of
State Government is concerned, the same has already been
13 WP-5234-2023.odt
addressed by this Court by holding that the State Government is
not a necessary party to the respective Complaints and the same
has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This Court
holds that University is an Industry within the meaning of Section
2(j) of the Act. The record reveals that the employees in question
were performing similar work in terms of quantity and quality
compared to their counter-parts who were permanent employees.
Record also reveals that they have completed 240 days of
continuous service in preceding years, though artificial breaks were
introduced inbetween. Their work was permanent and perennial in
nature from the very beginning of their service. As per the policy of
the University, the employees were promised jobs to only one
member of their household when their lands were acquired for
establishment of University. In fact the name of Dasrao Madhavrao
Hambarde had reflected in the information letter received under
Right to Information Act, 2005, which shows that he was one of
the beneficiary of the said policy. The employees were sufficiently
qualified for performing the prescribed work and therefore they
were continued from time to time. The act of University of granting
permanency to the junior employees to the exclusion of employees
14 WP-5234-2023.odt
in question shows discriminatory conduct of the University. The
employees have worked years together for the University and at
this stage not granting them of benefit of permanency would be
unjustified. Merely because the State Government had been
reluctant in creating and sanctioning posts cannot curtail the
justifiable right of employees for permanency. The letter issued by
University dated 27.06.2003 clearly shows the intent of University
to grant permanency to the employees but only because the posts
were not sanctioned by the Government, the said intent cannot be
wasted.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pandurang Sitaram
Jadhav and others Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Dairy
Manager and another, reported in [(2020) 17 SCC 393] has
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
15 WP-5234-2023.odt
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."
12. 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
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
16 WP-5234-2023.odt
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 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 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
17 WP-5234-2023.odt
retained on daily wages contrary to statutory equitable
norms".
13. 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 Departments must establishment registers,
muster rolls and outsourcing keep and produce
accurate 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 is not
consequences of prolonged insecurity 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
18 WP-5234-2023.odt
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 the or supernumerary posts in
corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or
equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent)
without any caveats 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 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
19 WP-5234-2023.odt
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 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
20 WP-5234-2023.odt
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".
14. 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 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
21 WP-5234-2023.odt
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 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
22 WP-5234-2023.odt
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."
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. The
State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 99 has held in
Paragraph Nos. 13.10 and 14 as under :
"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.
23 WP-5234-2023.odt
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.
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."
16. In the above judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
considered the issue of regularization and held that if the daily
wager employees have worked for years together and subsequently,
not given benefit of permanency then it amounts to unfair labor
practices. The employees have proved before the learned Industrial
Court that they have worked continuously in service and therefore,
the Industrial Court has rightly granted permanency in their favour
from the date of filing of respective Complaints. As far as the
prayer for granting permanency from the date of completion of 240
days of service is concerned, the same cannot be considered as the
employees were appointed prior to year 2000 and respective
24 WP-5234-2023.odt
Complaints were filed in the year 2010. Therefore due to delay and
latches the said benefit cannot be extended to the employees who
were not vigilant about their rights.
17. The orders passed by the Industrial Court in respective
Complaints are appropriate in view of the above mentioned
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and warrant no interference
by this Court either in favour of University or employees.
18. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the above cited cases, I am not inclined to entertain the present
petition. Hence I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petitions are dismissed.
(ii) No order as to cost.
19. Rule is discharged.
20. After passing this order, Learned Counsel for University
prays for stay to this order for period of 8 weeks. In fact, the
present petition is pending since 2023 and no interim order was
passed during its pendency, therefore I am not inclined to consider
such prayer and the same is rejected.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Sameer
