[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Uday Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
1
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
Digitally signed by
2026:CGHC:14918
RAVI SHANKAR
MANDAVI
Date: 2026.04.06
12:38:21 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2898 of 2026
1 - Uday Singh S/o Sukhnandan Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Salka, Post Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.)
2 - Narbada Singh S/o Hiran Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post
Ketka, Post Ketka, District Surajpur (C.G.)
3 - Sukhlal S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Salka, District
Surajpur (C.G.)
4 - Ramsay Singh S/o Jirijodhan Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o House No.
13, Ward No. 1, Tripureshwarpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
5 - Ram Naresh S/o Heeralal Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Pachrihapara,
House No. 21, Ward No. 03, Post Krishnapur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Public Work Department, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Engineer In Chief Public Work Department, Sirpur Bhavan, Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Chief Engineer Public Work Department Circle Ambikapur, District Surguja
(C.G.)
4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Work Department Circle Ambikapur,
District Surguja (C.G.)
2
5 - Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Bha/ Sadak Division
Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
6 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Work Department (B And R) Sub Division
Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.)
7 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Work Department (B And R) Sub Division
Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Petitioners : Mr. Aakash Singh, Advocate
For Respondents-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
01/04/2026
1. Petitioners has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue direction for respondent
authorities for considered the name of
petitions for regularization since after
completion of 10 years of service.
10.2 That, other relief which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper also, kindly
be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of
justice."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Petitioner No. 1
is working on the post of Care Taker and was initially appointed as a
daily-wage employee on 01.11.2013, the Petitioner No. 2 is working
on the post of Cook and was also initially appointed as daily-wage
employee on 01.03.2016, Petitioner No. 3 is working on the post of
Chowkidar and was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee on
01.11.2013, Petitioner No. 4 is working on the post of Chowkidar
and was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee prior to year
2013 and Petitioner No. 5 is working on the post of Care Taker and
was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee on 01.03.2016
with the respondent department. He contended that the petitioners
are working since last about more than 10 years on the said post
and they have made several oral requests to the authorities for
regularization of their services, however, till date, the respondent
authorities have not considered the claim of petitioners for
regularizing their services and therefore, he prays that direction be
issued to the Respondent No. 1 to consider the claim of petitioners
for regularization of their services. In support of his contention he
places reliance upon the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka
and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1
and in the decision passed by this Court in WP (S) No. 2429/2025
'Dinesh Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and other
connected matters' decided on 11.04.2025.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State
would submit that perusal of the writ petition would show that the
present petitioners have not submitted any representation before
the respondent authorities raising their grievance as raised in this
writ petition and therefore, if the petitioners submit a detailed
representation before the concerned authorities, it will be
considered and decided in accordance with law.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
5. 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."
6. 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 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 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."
7. 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 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 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."
8. 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
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.
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 .
9. 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
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.
• 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 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."
10. Recently, 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 perpetuate precarious working conditions while
circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices and observed
thus:
"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 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.
x x x
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 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."
11. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decisions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court and further considering that the petitioners have not
submitted any representation 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 permitting the petitioners to submit a
comprehensive representation raising all the grounds as raised in
this writ petition before the concerned authority and if such
representation is submitted by the petitioners, the concerned
authority shall consider and take decision on the representation to
be 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 03 months from the date of receipt of
the representation.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
