Jharkhand High Court
The Management Of Sail Refractories ... vs Manoj Kumar & Others on 16 September, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3699 of 2024
The Management of Sail Refractories Unit, IFICO Refractories Plant,
Marar, Hazaribagh, through its Executive Director, Mr. Prasanna
Kumar Rath ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Manoj Kumar & Others ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Manjushri Patra, Advocate
Ms. Mahua Palit, Advocate
Ms. Shipra Salini, Advocate
---------
09/Dated: 16.09.2025
I.A. No. 12831 of 2025 & I.A. No.9360 of 2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein have been appointed
against the vacant and sanctioned post on 04.08.1998, 01.07.1997,
10.12.1997, 14.04.1997, 14.04.1997, 05.03.2004 and 03.07.2000
respectively by the erstwhile Bharat Refractories Limited
amalgamated with the appellant herein.
3. It is further not in dispute that as many as 119 casual workers who
had completed more than 10 years of continued service under the
erstwhile Bharat Refractories Limited as on 02.05.2003 were
ordered to be regularized for granting them all benefits at par with
regular employees under the Management since 02.05.2003. It is
yet again not in dispute that similar placed 11 casual workmen who
were junior to the concerned workmen in the reference case were
also regularized so also 70 casual workmen followed by 36
workmen also regularized. It is only the respondents herein who
despite having completed more than 20 years of service have only
been regularized on 21.03.2025 and yet the appellant would pray
for staying the judgment passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Bench at
Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00128/2017 dated 12.03.2024, which has
passed directions to the following effect:-
"45. The services of the applicants are directed to be
regularized with all consequential benefits from the date
of completing ten years along with arrears from the date
of regularization of service. The respondents are further
directed to complete the formalities in the manner
directed above and same shall be completed within
period of three months from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of the order passed today failing which the
interest shall be paid @ 6 percent per annum from the
date of entitlement till final payment."
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Dharam Singh
& Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr dated 19.08.2025 has categorically
observed that when public institutions depend, day after day, on the
same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that
those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are
treated with fairness and dignity. The appellants therein had been
engaged by the Commission between 1989 and 1992 and served
as Class-IV employees and drivers respectively and paid as daily
wagers with effect from 08.04.1997. On 24.10.1991 the
Commission resolved to create fourteen posts in Class-III and
Class-IV and sought sanction from the State Government. The
process continued. Eventually, the State rejected the proposal
citing financial constraints, constraining the appellants therein to file
a writ petition seeking quashing of the decision made by the State
Government and further prayer for creation/sanctioning of fourteen
posts of Class-III/IV employees.
5. On 24.04.2002, the High Court directed the Commission to send a
fresh recommendation or sanction of appropriate Group-C/Group-D
posts and directed the State to take a decision afresh. Pursuant
thereto, a fresh recommendation was sent, however, the State
again declined to grant sanction by citing financial grounds and a
ban on creation of new posts.
6. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide its order dated
19.05.2009 dismissed the writ petition holding that there were no
rules for regularization in the Commission and also held that the
regularization was impermissible in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka &
Others v. Umadevi & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. An Inter
Court appeal was filed by the appellants therein, which came to be
dismissed on the ground that the appellants were daily waged
workers and there were no rules for regularization in the
Commission and that no vacancy existed for consideration.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
allowing the petition observed as under:-
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by
the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the appellants is
misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is
not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public
employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to
sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of
need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce.
On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction
between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and
does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment
where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for
years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court
in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi
(Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation
through long-term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a
proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are
exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated
therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant
paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi
(supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary
employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the
absence of statutory rules providing such absorption.
However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself
distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and
those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for
regularization if they meet certain conditions. More
importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify
exploitative engagements persisting for years without the
Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the
record which shows no true contractor-based
arrangement and a consistent need for permanent
horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-
wage status or continued unfair practices.
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 recordsdespite 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.""
12. We also note the Commission's affidavit filed in 21.04.2025
pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, wherein
reference has been made to a supervening reorganisation in
2024, whereby the U.P. Higher Education Services
Commission was merged into the U.P. Education Services
Selection Commission and, by a Government Order of
05.07.2024, certain Group-C posts were sanctioned while
Class-IV/Driver requirements were proposed to be met through
outsourcing. We must point out however, that supervening
structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending
proceedings. The successor body steps into the shoes of its
predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from
the prior regime. More fundamentally, a later policy to
outsource ClassIV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively
validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to
deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services
the establishment relied for decades.
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal
(Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to
perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement
practices where the work is inherently perennial. The
Commission's further contention that the appellants are not
"full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim
orders also does not advance their case. That interim
protection was granted precisely because of the long history of
engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's
refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases
entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the
legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief
on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed
the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view
overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the
11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh
decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed
on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we
believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality
of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or
upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter
on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court
compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without
engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening
material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the
dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and "vacancy"
while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's
refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long
service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned
order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's
refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they
concern the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of
Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial
ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand
quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed."
8. It would be evident from the aforesaid judgment that public sector
company like the appellant herein is required to work as a model
employer and cannot resort to adhocism of daily wage employment
in perpetuity by exploiting its workmen. The appellant cannot deny
basic parity where identical duties are extracted from the workmen
like the respondents herein as with the regularly appointed
employees.
9. It needs to be reiterated that where workmen continuously rendered
the service over several years sometimes more than two decades
as in the instant case, the same clearly proves that the work in
question is permanent in nature. Clearly, in this case the appellant
has persuasively misused the temporary employment/ daily wage
employment which has adversely affected the rights of the
respondents/ workmen and the job security.
10. At this stage, it shall be apt to quote the following observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman and MD NTPC Ltd. Vs.
Rashmi Construction Builders and Contractors (2004) 2 SCC 663:-
"28. Further, necessitas non habet legem is an age-old maxim
which means necessity knows no law. A person may sometimes
have to succumb to the pressure of the other party to the bargain
who is in a stronger position."
11. Notably the respondents herein are none other than the
functionaries of the State who are expected to function like a model
employer. A model employer is under an obligation to conduct itself
with high probity and expected candour and the employer, who is
duty bound to act as a model employer has social obligation to treat
an employee in an appropriate manner so that an employee is not
condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model
employer should not exploit its employees and take advantage of
their helplessness and misery. The conduct of the respondents falls
short of expectation of a model employer.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Bhupendra Nath
Hazarika and another Vs. State of Assam and others, (2013) 2 SCC
516 has succinctly explained this position in the following terms:-
"61. Before parting with the case, we are compelled to reiterate the
oft stated principle that the State is a model employer and it is
required to act fairly giving due regard and respect to the rules
framed by it. But in the present...7...case, the State has atrophied
the rules. Hence, the need for hammering the concept.
62. Almost a quarter century back, this Court in Balram.Gupta V.
Union of India 1987 Supp SCC 228 had observed thus: (SCC p.
236, para 13)
"13.... As a model employer the Government must conduct itself
with high probity and candour with its employees."
In State of Haryana V. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 the Court
had clearly stated: (SCC p. 134, para 21).
"21....The main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure
the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives
a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of
Articles 14 and 16."
63. In State of Karnataka V. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 (SCC P.
18, para 6) the Constitution Bench, while discussing the role of
State in recruitment procedure, stated that if rules have been
made under Article 3089 of the Constitution, then the
Government can make appointments only in accordance with the
rules, for the State is meant to be a model employer.
64. In Mehar Chand Polytechnic V. Anu Lamba (2006) 7 SCC
161 (SCC p. 166, para 16) the Court observed that public
employment is a facet of right to equality envisaged under Article
16 of the Constitution of India and that the recruitment rules are
framed with a view to give equal opportunity to all the citizens of
India entitled for being considered for recruitment in the vacant
posts.
65. We have stated the role of the State as a model employer with
the fond hope that in future a deliberate disregard is not taken
recourse to and deviancy of such magnitude is not adopted to
frustrate the claims of the employees. It should always be borne
in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not
guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in
despair. Hope for everyone is gloriously precious and a model
employer should not convert it to be deceitful and treacherous by
playing a game of chess with their seniority. A sense of calm
sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every
step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the
employees are absolutely sure that ...8...their trust shall not be
betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then
only the concept of good governance can be concretised. We
say no more."
13. It is more than settled that the social justice is the conscience of
our Constitution and the State is the promoter of economic justice,
the founding faith which sustains the Constitution and the country is
Indian humanity. The public sector is a model employer with a
social conscience not an artificial person without soul to be damned
or body to be burnt ( Krishna Iyer, J in Som Prakash Rekhi v.
Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 449).
14. If the present factual matrix is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
principles, there can be no trace of doubt that the appellant has
conveniently ostracized the concept of "model employer". It would
not be wrong to say that they have done so with pacific calmness,
sans vision, shorn of responsibility and oblivious of their role in
such a situation. Their action reflects the attitude of
emotionlessness, proclivity of impassivity and deviancy with cruel
impassibility. The appellant has never thought for a moment about
the injustice being meted out to the respondents. They have
remained totally alien to the situation to which the respondents
have been driven to. In such a situation the appellant cannot act
like an alien. It has an active role to play. It has to have a
constructive and progressive vision.
15. Lastly and importantly, even the purported order of
regularization dated 21.03.2025 makes it abundantly clear that the
appellant in fact has not regularized the services of the respondents
but have issued fresh appointment clearly ignoring the decades of
service rendered by them.
16. We see no reason to stay the impugned order dated 12.03.2024
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna
Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00128/2017.
17. Accordingly, I.A. No. 12831 of 2025 is dismissed. I.A. No. 9360
of 2025 stands disposed of.
18. The personal appearance of Sri. P.K. Rath, Executive Director
SAIL/SRU as directed by order dated 02.09.2025 is dispensed with.
19. List this case for hearing in due course.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
16.09.2025
AFR
Sharda/Rohit
Cp.02
