[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Jagadamba D/O K Ponnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
WP No. 101474 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 101474 OF 2025 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
JAGADAMBA D/O. K. PONNAPPA
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. LIBRARY SUPERVISOR,
G. P. LIBRARY, BANAVASI
R/O. ADARSHA NAGAR, BANAVASI
TQ. BANAVASI
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581318.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 2. THE COMMISSIONER
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KARWAR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581301.
4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BANAVASI GRAM PANCHAYAT, BANAVASI
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANANDA 581301.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
WP No. 101474 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. THE CHIEF LIBRARIAN
DISTRICT CENTRAL LIBRARY,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP;
NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 AT PRESENT NOT REQUIRED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR A
DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO
REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AS LIBRARY
SUPERVISOR PURSUANT TO HER REPRESENTATION DATED
12.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction
by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his
case for regularisation of services in the cadre of Library
Supervisor.
2. Heard Sri Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for
respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Library Supervisor
pursuant to the communication of the Director of Public Libraries
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
in respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat on 09.06.1994. The
qualifications required for the appointment of a Library
Supervisor were subsequently changed in 2007, introducing a
certification in Library Science courses.
4. The petitioner continues to work as a Library
Supervisor in respondent No. 4. Nonetheless, he has since
acquired the requisite qualification during his service and holds
the certificate as required by law.
5. The issue is that the petitioner is now seeking
regularisation of his services on the ground that he has
completed 30 years of service.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Girish V. Bhat,
would submit that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for
regularisation in light of his 30 years of service to date, and that
the respondents' failure to consider his case has compelled the
petitioner to seek a direction by way of a writ in the nature of
mandamus.
7. The learned HCGP would refute the submission,
contending that the petitioner was not appointed against a
sanctioned vacant post and, therefore, is not even entitled to
consideration for regularisation in light of the judgment of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
Apex Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS VS. UMA DEVI (3) &
OTHERS1.
8. The learned counsel would further contend that the
petitioner's post was honorary in nature and did not belong to a
sanctioned cadre.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
10. Therefore, the above narrated facts are not in
dispute. The dates of entry into service and continuance, which
are admitted facts, are required to be noticed. The petitioner was
appointed on 09.06.1994. The order of appointment is as
follows:
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ
ªÀÄÄRå UÀæAxÁ®AiÀiÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj
f¯Áè PÉÃAzÀæ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ
PÁgÀªÁgÀ GvÀÛ PÀ£ÀßqÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ: 9/6/94
SÉå:f.PÉ.UÀæA/GPÀ/728/94-95
UÉ,
CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ
UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ §£ÀªÁ¹
vÁ: ¹¹ð(G.PÀ).
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ
(2006) 4 SCC 1
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÉÄîéZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÁdgÁzÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1) F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå ¢£ÁAPÀ 1-6-94.
2) ªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 09-06-94 gÀ ºÁdgÁw ¥ÀvÀæ.
*******
ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¯ÉèÃR ¥ÀvÀæzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ vÀªÀÄä §¸ÀªÁ¹ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ
ªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀgÁV £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁzÀ PÀĪÀiÁj dUÀzÀA¨Á PÉ. ¥ÉÆ£ÀߥÀà EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ gÀAzÀÄ F PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°è
ºÁdgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw
¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
¸À»/-
ªÀÄÄRå UÀæAxÁ®AiÀiÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj
f¯Áè PÉÃAzÀæ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ
PÁgÀªÁgÀ (G.PÀ)
11. The order of appointment came about pursuant to
the Government Order which directed that every Panchayath
should have a library and a post of Library Supervisor. The
Government Order reads as follows:
ORDER NO. ED 81 KES 87. BANGALORE, DATED THE 7TH
JANUARY 1988
Sanction is accorded for expansion of the programmes of
the Department of Public Libraries at a cost of Rs. 30 lakhs during
1987-88. Expansion of the programmes of the Department is
confined to the following two issues:
a) To establish mandal libraries in a phased manner in the State at
a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs.
and
b) Purchase Kannada books for Libraries at a cost of Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Department should ensure that these library centres at
Mandal level be opened keeping in view of need and availability of
rent free buildings. The Department is permitted to appoint
caretaker for each Mandal Library at the rate of Rs. 800 p.m. as
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
honorarium. Average expenditure for each Mandal Library is shown
in the Annexure appended to this order.
Selection of books shall be made through the committee
constituted for the purpose.
The expenditure for this new scheme shall not exceed the
amount now released and it shall be debited to "2205 Artcle
Culture -105-Public Libraries- 10 Library Movement and Bulk
purchase of books for Libraries (Plan) during 1987-88."
This order issues with the concurrence of Finance
Department vide No.FD 180/Exp.8/87 dated 28.12.1987.
By Order and in the memo of the
Governor of Karnataka
Sd/-
(M.PANKAJA)
Under Secretary to Government
Education Department
12. The petitioner was appointed after following due
process of law and has continued in service from 1994 till date,
completing 31 years of service. The issue that arises for
consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to
regularisation. The question of regularisation has been
considered in extenso by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
UMA DEVI, wherein certain conditions were laid down for
considering the cases of employees seeking regularisation.
13. The conditions are succinctly set out by the
Government in its order dated 13.11.2006. The four stipulated
conditions include that the employment must be against a
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
sanctioned post, the employment should not be irregular or
illegal, and it should not be the subject of litigation, among other
requirements. In the aftermath of the judgment of the Apex
Court in UMA DEVI, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in a
plethora of subsequent judgments, examined the rights of
employees seeking regularisation on the ground that they have
rendered more than, or close to, 30 years of service.
14. This Court, in an identical circumstance while
considering the case relating to the post of Librarian, has held as
follows:
11. The issue now would be whether the petitioner
is entitled for consideration of her service in the fifth
respondent - Institution for regularisation.
12. The service history of the petitioner requires
reiteration. The petitioner gets appointed on
19.07.2004, against a clear vacancy caused of a
retirement of a Librarian. Therefore, it was a sanctioned
vacant post as on the date the petitioner was appointed.
In 2010, it is brought to the notice of the State by the
Society to consider her case for regularization. Time and
age both pass by as it is trite that time and age will wait
for none. The petitioner today, is 51 years old and as on
the date of the impugned notification, she was 49 years
old. As on the date of the impugned notification, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
petitioner had put in 19 years of continuous
uninterrupted service against a sanctioned vacant post,
albeit, on temporary basis. Today, she has put in 21
years of service and 51 years old. Even if she wants to
participate in any direct recruitment process, the age
that has advanced would undoubtedly come in her way.
Therefore, permitting the process of recruitment to the
post of Librarian to go on, would be leaving the
petitioner in the lurch and her fate to hang in thin air,
after having served for 21 years in an aided Institution,
against a sanctioned vacant post.
13. The State ought to have taken note of these
factors with little empathy, as regularization is
undoubtedly available in posts where they are sanctioned
and personnel working in those posts on vacancy
created. The petitioner fits into all the parameters
necessary for regularization as is held by the Apex Court
in the aftermath of the judgment rendered in the case of
SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI
(3)2, rendered on 10.04.2006. Considering the said
judgment, the Apex Court in the case of SHRIPAL v.
NAGAR NIGAM3, has held as follows:
"3. The factual matrix leading up to the appeal
before us is as follows:
3.1. The Appellant Workmen claim to have been
engaged as Gardeners (Malis) in the Horticulture
Department of the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad
(2006) 4 SCC 1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
Nagar Nigam, since the year 1998 (in some instances,
since 1999). According to them, they continuously
discharged horticultural and maintenance duties-- such
as planting trees, maintaining parks, and beautifying
public spaces--under the direct supervision of the
Respondent Employer. They further allege that no
formal appointment letters were ever issued to them,
and that they were persistently denied minimum
wages, weekly offs, national holidays, and other
statutory benefits.
3.2. In 2004, the Appellant Workmen, along
with many other similarly situated employees, raised an
industrial dispute (C.B. Case No. 6 of 2004) before the
Conciliation Officer at Ghaziabad, seeking regularization
of their services and the requisite statutory benefits.
They contend that, upon learning of this demand, the
Respondent Employer began delaying their salaries and
subjected them to adverse working conditions.
Eventually, around mid-July 2005, the services of
numerous workmen were allegedly terminated orally,
without any notice, written orders, or retrenchment
compensation.
3.3. Since the above termination took place
during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the
Appellant Workmen argue it violated Section 6E of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the
State Government referred the disputes concerning
both (i) regularization and (ii) legality of the alleged
termination, to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad for
adjudication.
3.4. The Labour Court proceeded to decide the
references vide two orders:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
(i) Order dated 03.06.2011 : In numerous
adjudication cases (e.g., Adjudication Case Nos.
448, 451, 467 of 2006, etc.), the Labour Court
passed awards holding the terminations illegal for
want of compliance with Section 6N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed
reinstatement with 30% back wages.
(ii) Order dated 11.10.2011 : However, in about
41 other adjudication cases (e.g., Adjudication
Case Nos. 269, 270, 272, etc.), the Labour Court
arrived at a contrary conclusion, dismissing the
claims on the finding that the concerned workmen
had not been engaged directly by the Nagar Nigam
but rather through a contractor, and hence had no
enforceable right to reinstatement or regularization
against the Respondent Employer.
3.5. Aggrieved by the adverse portion of the awards
(i.e., those granting reinstatement), the
Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam,
filed several writ petitions before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the Labour
Court's findings. On the other hand, the workmen
whose claims were dismissed by the other set of
awards also approached the High Court by filing
their own writ petitions. All these writ petitions
were heard together, culminating in the common
judgment dated 01.03.2019, which partly modified
the Labour Court's conclusions.
3.6. Through the impugned judgment, the High
Court held that while the Labour Court was
correct in exercising jurisdiction under the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (since
municipalities could be treated as "industry"),
there remained factual complexities as to
whether the workmen were genuinely on the
rolls of the Nagar Nigam or were provided by
contractors. The High Court also noted that
the State Government had, by
notifications/orders, placed a ban on fresh
recruitments in Municipal Corporations,
thereby restricting direct appointments to any
post. Ultimately, the High Court partially
modified the relief granted, directing re-
engagement of the workmen on daily wages,
with pay equivalent to the minimum in the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
regular pay scale of Gardeners, while allowing
future consideration of their regularization if
permissible by law.
4. Both the Appellant Workmen and the Respondent
Employer have now approached this Court by way
of Special Leave Petitions. The workmen primarily
seek full reinstatement with back wages and a
direction to secure their regularization, whereas
the Respondent Employer seeks to quash the
modifications ordered by the High Court on the
ground that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction by granting partial relief akin to regular
employees, contrary to constitutional provisions
and the State's ban on recruitment.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant Workmen
made the following submissions:
I. Continuous Service & Comparable Duties :
The Appellant Workmen had continuously
discharged horticultural and maintenance
duties-- like planting trees, upkeep of public
parks, and general beautification--under the
direct supervision and control of the
Respondent Employer for periods often
exceeding a decade. They insist such
longstanding, continuous work parallels that
of permanent Gardeners.
II. Direct Engagement & Wage Disbursement :
They aver that their wages, though inadequate,
were paid directly by the Horticulture Department
of the Respondent Employer, nullifying the
Employer's claim of contractual hiring. Muster rolls
and internal notes are cited to show direct
employer-employee relations.
III. Illegal Termination : Alleging violation of
Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the Appellant Workmen maintain their
abrupt termination in July 2005 (during pendency
of conciliation proceedings) was devoid of due
process and statutory payments, rendering it
patently illegal.
IV. Entitlement to Reinstatement &
Regularization : Given their long service and the
principle of "equal pay for equal work," the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
Appellant Workmen submit they deserve full
reinstatement with back wages and a legitimate
pathway to regularization, as opposed to the
partial relief of mere daily-wage re-engagement
prescribed by the High Court.
6. On the other, the learned counsel for the
Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam
made the following submissions:
I. Compliance with Constitutional
Requirements : Emphasizing the constitutional
scheme of public employment, it is urged that
there was (and remains) a ban on fresh
recruitment in Municipal Corporations, and no
proper selection process was ever followed to
appoint the Workmen on any sanctioned posts.
II. No Direct Employer-Employee
Relationship : The Respondent Employer
contends that all horticulture work was carried out
through independent contractors appointed via
tender processes. It claims any partial wage
documentation cited by the Workmen fails to
establish direct engagement.
III. Inapplicability of Regularization : Relying
on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1, it is
asserted that no daily wager can claim permanent
absorption without adherence to constitutional
requirements and availability of duly sanctioned
vacancies.
IV. Inadequate Proof of 240 Days' Service :
The Respondent Employer points out that the
Workmen did not convincingly demonstrate they
completed 240 days of continuous work in any
calendar year, thus undermining the assertion that
their cessation from service was illegal.
V. Challenge to Modified Relief: Finally, it argues
that the High Court's direction to pay minimum-
scale wages and to consider the Workmen for
future regularization oversteps legal boundaries,
disregards the recruitment ban, and fosters an
impermissible avenue of public employment. The
Respondent Employer, therefore, seeks the
quashing of the impugned judgment.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
7. Having heard the arguments and submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the nature of engagement of the
Appellant Workmen, the admitted shortage of
Gardeners, and the circumstances under which
their services were brought to an end, merit closer
scrutiny.
8. It is undisputed that, while the Appellant
Workmen were pressing for regularization and
proper wages through pending conciliation
proceedings, the Respondent Employer proceeded
to discontinue their services, without issuing prior
notice or granting retrenchment compensation. At
this juncture, it is to have a look at the
requirements of Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 which has been reproduced
hereunder:--
"6E. [Conditions of service, etc. to remain
unchanged in certain circumstances during the
pendency of proceedings. [Inserted by U.P. Act No.
1 of 1957.]
(1) During the pendency of any conciliation
proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a Board
or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or
Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no
employer shall, -
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the
dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen
concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service
applicable to them immediately before the
commencement of such proceeding, or
(b) for any misconduct connected with the
dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal
or otherwise any workman concerned in such
dispute save with the express permission in writing
of the authority before which the proceeding is
pending.
(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding
in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer
may, in accordance with the standing orders
applicable to a workman concerned in such
dispute, -
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected
with the dispute, the conditions of service
applicable to that workman immediately before the
commencement of such proceeding, or
(b) for any misconduct not connected with the
dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal
or otherwise:
Provided that no such workman shall be discharged
or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for
one month and an application has been made by
the employer to the authority before which the
proceeding is pending for approval of the action
taken by the employer.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2) no employer shall during the pendency
of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial
dispute, take any action against any protected
workman concerned in such dispute, -
(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected
workman, the conditions of service applicable to
him immediately before the commencement of
such proceeding, or
(b) by discharging or punishing, whether by
dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman,
such with the express permission in writing of the
authority before which the proceeding is pending.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section,
a 'protected workman' in relation to an
establishment, means a workman who, being an
officer of a registered trade union connected with
the establishment, is recognized as such in
accordance with rules made in this behalf.
(4) In every establishment, the number of
workmen to be recognized as protected workmen
for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall not
exceed one per cent of the total number of
workmen employed therein subject to a minimum
number of five protected workmen and a maximum
number of one hundred protected workmen and for
the aforesaid purpose, the State Government may
make rules providing for the distribution of such
protected workmen among various trade unions, if
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
any, connected with the establishment and the
manner in which they may be chosen and
recognized as protected workmen.
(5) Where an employer makes an application to a
Board, Labour Court or Tribunal under the proviso
to sub-section (2) for approval of the action taken
by him, the authority concerned shall, without
delay, hear such application and pass, as
expeditiously as possible, such order in relation
thereto as it deems fit."
9. On a plain reading of this section, we can
deduce that any unilateral alteration in
service conditions, including termination, is
impermissible during the pendency of such
proceedings unless prior approval is obtained
from the appropriate authority. The record in
the present case does not indicate that the
Respondent Employer ever sought or was
granted the requisite approval. Prima facie,
therefore, this conduct reflects a deliberate
attempt to circumvent the lawful claims of the
workmen, particularly when their dispute
over regularization and wages remained sub
judice.
10. The Respondent Employer consistently labelled
the Appellant Workmen as casual employees (or
workers engaged through an unnamed contractor),
yet there is no material proof of adherence to
Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, which mandates a proper notice or wages in
lieu thereof as well as retrenchment compensation.
In this context, whether an individual is classified
as regular or temporary is irrelevant as
retrenchment obligations under the Act must be
met in all cases attracting Section 6N. Any
termination thus effected without statutory
safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly.
11. xxxx
12. xxxx
13. xxxx
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance
on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
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 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:
"xxxxxxxxx"
16. xxx
17. xxx
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the
extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
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
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
long-time employees are not indefinitely
retained on daily wages contrary to statutory
and equitable norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by
the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by
the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the afore-quoted judgment, the Apex Court
observes that such employment would become
exploitative engagement, if regularization would not
ensue. Those were the cases of workmen covered under
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, in the case
of hand is that of a Librarian, who is in the position of a
teacher.
14. If the case at hand is considered on the touch
stone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, what
would unmistakably emerge is that, the fate of the
petitioner cannot be left to be marooned in thin air or
leave her life in the lurch. At the time, when the
petitioner was appointed, was 28 years old; in the prime
youth, the petitioner has toiled for the development of
the fifth respondent - Institution qua Library and the
service rendered cannot be brushed aside and
regularisation in such cases cannot be declined to the
considered. In view of the preceding analysis and also
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHRIPAL
supra, the petition deserves to succeed.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
ORDER
a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The notification dated 08.02.2023, issued by the
fourth respondent - Society only insofar as it
concerns the post of Librarian, stands quashed.
c. Mandamus issues to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3
to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularisation of her services in the post of
Librarian, owing to and bearing in mind the
observation made in the course of the order.
The order shall be complied with, within an outer
limit within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier."
15. This Court in WP 105364 of 2025 C/w WP
105664 of 2025 disposed on 15-10-2025, while considering
the entire jurisprudence concerning SECRETARY, STATE OF
KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1
and its aftermath, culminating into DHARAM SINGH AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1735, holds as follows:
"14. All these endorsements would run foul of what
the Apex Court has held from time to time. This Court, in
W.P. No.100556 of 2024 disposed on 20.02.2025, rendered
in the aftermath of the judgment in the case of UMADEVI
(supra), has held as follows:
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
"14. As observed hereinabove, the Apex Court
rendered its judgment in the case of UMADEVI (3) on
10-04-2006. Relevant paragraphs are already quoted
hereinabove. Subsequent to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of UMADEVI (3), considering the case
of UMADEVI (3), the Apex Court in several judgments
held and affirmed the right of several employees for
regularization under several circumstances. The Apex
Court in the case of NARENDRA KUMAR
TIWARI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [(2018) 8 SCC
238], holds as follows:
"7. The purpose and intent of the decision
in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was
therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or
illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to
confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly
appointed in the past. The fact that the State of
Jharkhand continued with the irregular
appointments for almost a decade after the
decision in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes
that it was all right to continue with irregular
appointments, and whenever required, terminate
the services of the irregularly appointed employees
on the ground that they were irregularly appointed.
This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the
employees by not giving them the benefits of
regularisation and by placing the sword of
Damocles over their head. This is precisely
what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]
and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L.
Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S)
826] sought to avoid.
8. If a strict and literal interpretation,
forgetting the spirit of the decision of the
Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753], is to be taken into consideration
then no irregularly appointed employee of the
State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since
that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000
and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In
other words, in this manner the pernicious
practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly
appointed employees would be perpetuated
contrary to the intent of the Constitution
Bench.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
9. The High Court as well as the State
of Jharkhand ought to have considered the
entire issue in a contextual perspective and
not only from the point of view of the interest
of the State, financial or otherwise - the
interest of the employees is also required to
be kept in mind. What has eventually been
achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short
circuit the process of regular appointments
and instead make appointments on an
irregular basis. This is hardly good
governance.
10. Under the circumstances, we are of the
view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a
pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they
have completed 10 years of service on the date of
promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to
be given the benefit of the service rendered by
them. If they have completed 10 years of
service they should be regularised unless
there is some valid objection to their
regularisation like misconduct, etc.
11. The impugned judgment and
order [Anil Kumar Sinha v. State of
Jharkhand, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2904] passed by
the High Court is set aside in view of our
conclusions. The State should take a decision
within four months from today on regularisation of
the status of the appellants. The appeals are
accordingly disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Later, the Apex Court in the case of SHEO
NARAIN NAGAR v. STATE OF U.P. [(2018) 13 SCC
432], holds as follows:
"6. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent has relied upon para 44 of
the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753], so as to contend that it was not
the case of irregular appointment but of illegal
appointment; there was no post available on which
the services of the appellants could have been
regularised and appointment were in contravention
of the reservation policy also; thus, termination
order was rightly issued and, in no case, the
appellants were entitled for regularisation of their
services.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
7. When we consider the prevailing
scenario, it is painful to note that the decision
in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has
not been properly understood and rather wrongly
applied by various State Governments. We have
called for the data in the instant case to ensure as
to how many employees were working on contract
basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in
different State departments. We can take judicial
notice that widely aforesaid practice is being
continued. Though this Court has emphasised that
incumbents should be appointed on regular basis
as per rules but new devise of making appointment
on contract basis has been adopted, employment is
offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative
forms. This situation was not envisaged
by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. The
prime intendment of the decision was that the
employment process should be by fair means and
not by back door entry and in the available pay
scale. That spirit of the Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored and conveniently
overlooked by various State
Governments/authorities. We regretfully make the
observation that Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] has not been implemented in its
true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and
substance. It is being used only as a tool for
not regularising the services of incumbents.
They are being continued in service without
payment of due salary for which they are
entitled on the basis of Articles 14, 16 read
with Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of
India as if they have no constitutional
protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union
of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1
SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : AIR 1983 SC
130], from cradle to grave. In heydays of life
they are serving on exploitative terms with no
guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in
old age they are going to be destituted, there
being no provision for pension, retiral
benefits, etc. There is clear contravention of
constitutional provisions and aspiration of
downtrodden class. They do have equal rights
and to make them equals they require
protection and cannot be dealt with
arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is
not only bad but equally unconstitutional and
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance
to really implement the ideology of Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. Thus, the time
has come to stop the situation where Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] can be permitted
to be flouted, whereas, this Court has
interdicted such employment way back in the
year 2006. The employment cannot be on
exploitative terms, whereas Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] laid down that there should not be
back door entry and every post should be filled by
regular employment, but a new device has been
adopted for making appointment on payment of
paltry system on contract/ad hoc basis or
otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible
when we consider the pith and substance of true
spirit in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753].
8. Coming to the facts of the instant case,
there was a direction issued way back in the year
1999, to consider the regularisation of the
appellants. However, regularisation was not done.
The respondents chose to give minimum of the pay
scale, which was available to the regular
employees, way back in the year 2000 and by
passing an order, the appellants were also
conferred temporary status in the year 2006, with
retrospective effect on 2-10-2002. As the
respondents have themselves chosen to confer a
temporary status to the employees, as such there
was requirement at work and posts were also
available at the particular point of time when order
was passed. Thus, the submission raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent that posts were
not available, is belied by their own action.
Obviously, the order was passed considering the
long period of services rendered by the appellants,
which were taken on exploitative terms.
9. The High Court dismissed the writ
application relying on the decision in Umadevi (3)
[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. But the appellants
were employed basically in the year 1993;
they had rendered service for three years,
when they were offered the service on
contract basis; it was not the case of back
door entry; and there were no Rules in place
for offering such kind of appointment. Thus,
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
the appointment could not be said to be
illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there
were no such Rules available at the relevant
point of time, when their temporary status
was conferred w.e.f. 2-10-2002. The
appellants were required to be appointed on
regular basis as a one-time measure, as laid
down in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753]. Since the appellants had
completed 10 years of service and temporary
status had been given by the respondents
with retrospective effect from 2-10-2002, we
direct that the services of the appellants be
regularised from the said date i.e. 2.10.2002,
consequential benefits and the arrears of pay
also to be paid to the appellants within a
period of three months from today."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. The Apex Court in the case of CHANDER
MOHAN NEGI v. STATE OF H.P. [(2020) 5 SCC 732],
holds as follows:
"11. At the outset, it is to be noted that the
schemes in question were notified in the years
2001 and 2003 under which appointments were
made with regard to Primary Assistant Teachers
and Teachers in other categories. At the relevant
point of time, nobody has questioned either the
schemes or the appointments. It is the specific
case of the respondent State that such
appointments have not affected the writ petitioners
and the Department was not in a position to leave
the schools, Teachers deficient for long since it
would have affected the studies of the students
very badly. Therefore, it was the case of the State
that Teachers had been appointed under various
schemes at that point of time and such
appointments have been made up to the year 2007
and have no impact on the appellants since they
have completed their two-year JBT training in the
year 2011. As is evident from the order [Pankaj
Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944]
under appeal passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court, the appellant-writ petitioners have not
even chosen to file rejoinder and the stand taken
by the State thus has remained uncontroverted.
Further, it is also to be noted that when such
appointments were made during the years 2001
and 2003 the writ petitions came to be filed in the
years 2012 and 2013. As the writ petitioners have
claimed interest for their appointment, the Division
Bench of the High Court has rightly held [Pankaj
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944]
that such petitions cannot be considered as the
public interest litigation. Such a writ petition which
was filed by the petitioners who came to be
qualified only in the year 2011 are not entitled for
any relief on the ground of unexplained laches and
inordinate delay of about more than 10 years in
approaching the court for questioning the
appointments. Though relief was sought against
the State to deny the benefit of regularisation to
the appointed Teachers, they were not even
impleaded as party respondents. An association
was impleaded as third respondent but without
furnishing any material to show that at least
majority of appointees are members of such
association. So far as Primary Assistant Teachers
Scheme of 2003, which was the subject-matter of
letters patent appeal arising out of CWP No. 3303
of 2012-A filed by Chander Mohan Negi and others,
is concerned, the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
2813 of 2017 except Appellants 1, 2 and 4 have
withdrawn [Chander Mohan Negi v. State of
H.P., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 459] the appeal and
Appellants 1 and 4 are already appointed as JBTs.
Insofar as the only appellant viz. Appellant 2, Rajiv
Chauhan is concerned, it is stated that he is
qualified and there are vacant posts and he can be
considered if he applies to any of the existing
vacancies. So far as the Primary Assistant Teacher
Scheme is concerned, same was notified as early
as on 27-8-2003. As is evident from the Scheme
itself, the object of the Scheme appears to be to
compulsorily enrol children in schools for
elementary and primary education in the remote
areas to achieve the goals as set by the
Government while enacting the Himachal Pradesh
Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997 with a
view to achieve the target of 100% enrolment to
children. As per the Scheme, the eligibility was
10+2 from a recognised Board/University and the
candidates with higher qualifications were also
eligible and candidates with professional
qualifications were to be preferred. As per the
regular Recruitment Rules the requisite
qualification for the post of JBT Teacher during the
relevant time was 10+2 with 50% marks and JBT
certificate. As submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the State that initially
though 3500 odd Teachers were appointed, as of
now there are only a total of 3294 Teachers
working in this category and out of this about 1866
had the qualification of 10+2 with more than 50%
marks at the relevant point of engagement. Out of
the balance, 1015 had 10+2 with less than 50%
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
marks, but they had higher qualification such as
BA/MA/M Sc or B Ed, etc. Further, it is also brought
to our notice that out of all the candidates, 3294
candidates who are presently working have
acquired the professional qualification of diploma in
elementary education or have undergone
Professional Development Programme for
Elementary Teachers. In that view of the matter,
we are of the view that when the appointees
appointed under the scheme have completed more
than almost 15 years of service now and also have
acquired the professional qualifications, they
cannot be denied regularisation at this point of
time. As the appointments were made as per the
schemes notified by the Government such
appointments cannot be treated as illegal, if at all
they can be considered irregular. When it is the
plea of the State that in view of the hard
topography/tribal areas in the State, large number
of vacancies were there even in single teacher
schools and to achieve the object of the Himachal
Pradesh Primary Education Act, 1997 such steps
were taken, there is no reason to disbelieve the
same, more so, in absence of any affidavit by way
of rejoinder by the writ petitioners before the High
Court controverting the allegations in the reply filed
on behalf of the State.
12. Even with regard to the Para Teachers
Policy under which various category of Teachers
were appointed in the year 2003 pursuant to policy
notified on 17-9-2003 it is clear from the record
placed before this Court that all the persons who
were recruited as Para Teachers were fully qualified
as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules i.e.
the Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class
III (School and Inspection Cadre) Service Rules,
1973. In view of the stand of the State that such
policy was necessitated due to large number of
vacant posts which have arisen year after year and
which could not be filled since the State Selection
Subordinate Board, Hamirpur, which was
responsible for the selection of Teachers had come
under a cloud and the selection process had come
to a halt, such appointments cannot be rendered as
illegal. Such aspect is also evident from the policy
itself. Even in other category of the Grant-in-Aid to
Parent Teacher Association Rules, all Teachers
appointed under the Scheme fulfil the educational
qualifications prescribed in the Rules. For such kind
of Teachers, the Cabinet has taken decision to take
over the Teachers on contract basis after
completion of eight years of service which period
was later reduced to seven years. It is also brought
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
to our notice during the course of arguments that
out of the total 6799 Teachers, 5017 Teachers
were already taken over on contract basis by the
State Government and only 1782 could not be
taken over in view of the interim orders passed by
this Court.
13. It is true that in the initial schemes
notified by the Government, there was a
condition that such appointees should not
seek regularisation/ absorption but at the
same time for no fault of them, they cannot
be denied regularisation/absorption. It is in
view of the requirement of the State, their
services were extended from time to time and
now all the appointees have completed more
than 15 years of service. For majority of the
appointed Teachers under the various
schemes, benefit was already extended and
some left over candidates were denied on
account of interim orders passed by this
Court. With regard to Primary Assistant
Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates
have completed Special Teacher Training
Qualifying Condensed Course and also had
obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years'
continuous service in terms of the Himachal
Pradesh Education Code, 1985. The
judgments relied on by learned counsel Shri
Prashant Bhushan also would not render any
assistance to the case of the appellants herein
for the reason that there was unexplained
and inordinate delay on the part of the
appellants in approaching the High Court and
further having regard to explanation offered
by the State about the need of framing such
policies to meet the immediate requirement
to fill up single teacher schools which were
vacant for a very long time, having regard to
topographical conditions, which is not even
controverted by way of any rejoinder before
the High Court. In such view of the matter,
taking the totality of peculiar circumstances
of these cases, we are of the view that the
view expressed by this Court in the
judgments relied on cannot be applied to the
facts of the case on hand. All the appointed
candidates are working for the meagre
salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the
Government. Except the vague submission
that such schemes were framed only to make
backdoor entries, there is no material placed
on record to buttress such submission.
Further it is also to be noted that though such
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
schemes were notified as early as in 2003,
nobody has questioned such policies and
appointments up to 2012 and 2013. The writ
petition i.e. CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A was filed
in the year 2012 without even impleading the
appointees as party respondents. In the writ
petition, there was no rejoinder filed by the
writ petitioners disputing the averments of
the State as stated in the reply-affidavit.
Having regard to the nature of such
appointments, appointments made as per
policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having
regard to material placed before this Court
and having regard to reasons recorded in the
impugned order [Pankaj Kumar v. State of
H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] by the High
Court, we are of the view that no case is made
out to interfere with the impugned
judgment [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014
SCC OnLine HP 5944] of the High Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Earlier to the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in the afore-quoted judgment, the Apex Court in
the case of AMARENDRA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA [(2014) 4 SCC
583], had held as follows:
"42. The decision in Umadevi (3) case
[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], as noticed earlier,
permitted regularisation of regular appointments
and not illegal appointments. Question, however, is
whether the appointments in the instant case could
be described as illegal and if they were not,
whether the State could be directed to regularise
the services of the degree-holder Junior Engineers
who have worked as ad hoc Assistant Engineers for
such a long period, not only on the analogy of the
legislative enactment for regularisation but also on
the principle underlying para 53 of the decision
in Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753].
43. As to what would constitute an
irregular appointment is no longer res
integra. The decision of this Court in State of
Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC
247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826], has examined
that question and explained the principle
regarding regularisation as enunciated
in Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
SCC (L&S) 753]. The decision in that case
summed up the following three essentials for
regularisation : (1) the employees have
worked for ten years or more, (2) that they
have so worked in a duly sanctioned post
without the benefit or protection of the
interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3)
they should have possessed the minimum
qualification stipulated for the appointment.
Subject to these three requirements being
satisfied, even if the appointment process did
not involve open competitive selection, the
appointment would be treated irregular and
not illegal and thereby qualify for
regularisation. Para 7 in this regard is
apposite and may be extracted at this
stage: (M.L. Kesari case [(2010) 9 SCC
247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826], SCC p. 250)
"7. It is evident from the above
that there is an exception to the general
principles against 'regularisation'
enunciated in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], if the following
conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should
have worked for 10 years or more
in a duly sanctioned post without
the benefit or protection of the
interim order of any court or
tribunal. In other words, the State
Government or its instrumentality
should have employed the
employee and continued him in
service voluntarily and continuously
for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee
should not be illegal, even if
irregular. Where the appointments
are not made or continued against
sanctioned posts or where the
persons appointed do not possess
the prescribed minimum
qualifications, the appointments will
be considered to be illegal. But
where the person employed
possessed the prescribed
qualifications and was working
against sanctioned posts, but had
been selected without undergoing
the process of open competitive
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
selection, such appointments are
considered to be irregular."
44. It is nobody's case that the degree-
holder Junior Engineers were not qualified for
appointment as Assistant Engineers as even
they possess degrees from recognised
institutions. It is also nobody's case that they
were not appointed against the sanctioned
post. There was some debate as to the actual
number of vacancies available from time to
time but we have no hesitation in holding that
the appointments made were at all relevant
points of time against sanctioned posts. The
information provided by Mr. Nageswara Rao,
learned Additional Solicitor General,
appearing for the State of Orissa, in fact,
suggests that the number of vacancies was at
all points of time more than the number of
appointments made on ad hoc basis. It is also
clear that each one of the degree-holders has
worked for more than 10 years ever since his
appointment as ad hoc Assistant Engineer. It
is in that view difficult to describe these
appointments of the Stipendiary Engineers on
ad hoc basis to be illegal so as to fall beyond
the purview of the scheme envisaged
in Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753].
45. The upshot of the above discussion is
that not only because in Umadevi (3) case [State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] this Court did not disturb
the appointments already made or regularisation
granted, but also because the decision itself
permitted regularisation in case of irregular
appointments, the legislative enactment granting
such regularisation does not call for interference at
this late stage when those appointed or regularised
have already started retiring having served their
respective departments, in some cases for as long
as 22 years."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. A three Judges bench of the Apex Court
considering the case of UMADEVI (3) supra and
subsequent judgments, in the case of PREM
SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [(2019) 10 SCC 516], holds
as follows:
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
"36. There are some of the employees who
have not been regularised in spite of having
rendered the services for 30-40 or more years
whereas they have been superannuated. As they
have worked in the work-charged establishment,
not against any particular project, their services
ought to have been regularised under the
Government instructions and even as per the
decision of this Court in State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753]. This Court in the said decision
has laid down that in case services have been
rendered for more than ten years without the
cover of the Court's order, as one-time
measure, the services be regularised of such
employees. In the facts of the case, those
employees who have worked for ten years or
more should have been regularised. It would
not be proper to regulate them for
consideration of regularisation as others have
been regularised, we direct that their services
be treated as a regular one. However, it is
made clear that they shall not be entitled to
claiming any dues of difference in wages had
they been continued in service regularly
before attaining the age of superannuation.
They shall be entitled to receive the pension
as if they have retired from the regular
establishment and the services rendered by
them right from the day they entered the
work-charged establishment shall be counted
as qualifying service for purpose of pension.
37. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of
the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold
that services rendered in the work-charged
establishment shall be treated as qualifying service
under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The
arrears of pension shall be confined to three years
only before the date of the order. Let the
admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three
months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the
employees are allowed and filed by the State are
dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. The Apex Court later, in the case of JAGGO
v. UNION OF INDIA [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] has
held as follows:
"7. They urged the High Court to
recognize their long and continuous service,
the nature of their work, and the lack of any
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted
that they had functioned without any break,
performed tasks equivalent to regular
employees, and had been assigned duties
essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness,
and maintenance of the respondent's offices.
The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's
decision and the submissions advanced,
concluded that the petitioners before it were
part-time workers who had not been
appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had
they performed a sufficient duration of full-
time service to satisfy the criteria for
regularization. It relied on the principle laid down
in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi3 holding that the petitioners could not claim a
vested right to be absorbed or regularized without
fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court
further observed that the petitioners did not
possess the minimum educational qualifications
ordinarily required for regular appointments, and
additionally noted that the employer had
subsequently outsourced the relevant
housekeeping and maintenance activities.
Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant
the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the
writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the
appellants have approached this Court by way of
these appeals.
8. On behalf of the appellants, the
following arguments have been advanced before
us:
(i). Continuous and Substantive
Engagement: The appellants emphasize
their long, uninterrupted service spanning
well over a decade--and in some instances,
exceeding two decades. They argue that
their duties were neither sporadic nor
project-based but permanent and integral
to the daily functioning of the respondent's
offices.
(ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities--
such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and
other maintenance tasks--were not casual
or peripheral. Instead, they were central to
ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional
work environment, effectively aligning with
roles typically associated with regular
posts.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
(iii). Absence of Performance
Issues: Throughout their tenure, the
appellants were never issued any warning
or adverse remarks. They highlight that
their work was consistently satisfactory,
and there was no indication from the
respondents that their performance was
not satisfactory or required improvement.
(iv). Compliance with 'Uma Devi'
Guidelines: The appellants assert that
their appointments were not "illegal" but at
most "irregular." Drawing on the principles
laid down in Secretary, State of
Karnataka v. Uma Devi4, they submit that
long-serving employees in irregular
appointments--who fulfil essential,
sanctioned functions--are entitled to
consideration for regularization.
(v). Discrimination in Regularization: The
appellants point out that individuals with
fewer years of service or similar
engagements have been regularized. They
contend that denying them the same
benefit, despite their longer service and
crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and
discriminatory treatment.
(vi). Irrelevance of Educational
Qualifications: The appellants reject the
respondents' reliance on formal educational
requirements, noting that such criteria
were never enforced earlier and that the
nature of their work does not inherently
demand formal schooling. They argue that
retrospectively imposing such qualifications
is unjustified given their proven capability
over many years.
(vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the
appellants submit that the High Court erred
by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms
of engagement and ignoring the
substantive reality of their long, integral
service. They maintain that fairness,
equity, and established judicial principles
call for their regularization rather than
abrupt termination
9. On the other hand, the following primary
arguments have been advanced before us on
behalf of the Respondents:
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
(i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents
maintain that the appellants were engaged
purely on a part-time, contractual basis,
limited to a few hours a day, and that their
work was never intended to be permanent
or full-time.
(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). Non-Compliance with 'Uma Devi'
Criteria: Relying heavily on
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi (supra), the respondents argue that
the appellants do not meet the conditions
necessary for regularization. They
emphasize that merely serving a long
period on a part-time or ad-hoc basis does
not create a right to be regularized.
(iv). Educational Qualifications: The
respondents contend that even if the
appellants were to be considered for
regular appointments, they do not possess
the minimum educational qualifications
mandated for regular recruitment. This, in
their view, disqualifies the appellants from
being absorbed into regular service.
(v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy
Decision: The respondents point out that
they have chosen to outsource the relevant
housekeeping and maintenance work to a
private agency. This, they argue, is a
legitimate administrative policy decision
aimed at improving efficiency and cannot
be interfered with by the courts.
(vi). No Fundamental Right to
Regularization: Finally, the respondents
underscore that no employee, merely by
virtue of long-standing temporary or part-
time engagement, acquires a vested right
to be regularized. They maintain that the
appellants' claims are devoid of any legal
entitlement and that the High Court was
correct in dismissing their petition.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
10. Having given careful consideration
to the submissions advanced and the material
on record, we find that the appellants' long
and uninterrupted service, for periods
extending well beyond ten years, cannot be
brushed aside merely by labelling their initial
appointments as part-time or contractual. The
essence of their employment must be
considered in the light of their sustained
contribution, the integral nature of their
work, and the fact that no evidence suggests
their entry was through any illegal or
surreptitious route.
11. The appellants, throughout their
tenure, were engaged in performing essential
duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day
functioning of the offices of the Central Water
Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as
Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining
hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working
environment within the office premises. Their
duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of
floors, workstations, and common areas--a set of
responsibilities that directly contributed to the
basic operational functionality of the CWC.
Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with
additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was
entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including
gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and
ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as "part-
time workers," the appellants performed
these essential tasks on a daily and
continuous basis over extensive periods,
ranging from over a decade to nearly two
decades. Their engagement was not sporadic
or temporary in nature; instead, it was
recurrent, regular, and akin to the
responsibilities typically associated with
sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents
did not engage any other personnel for these
tasks during the appellants' tenure,
underscoring the indispensable nature of
their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that
these were not regular posts lacks merit, as
the nature of the work performed by the
appellants was perennial and fundamental to
the functioning of the offices. The recurring
nature of these duties necessitates their
classification as regular posts, irrespective of
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
how their initial engagements were labelled.
It is also noteworthy that subsequent
outsourcing of these same tasks to private
agencies after the appellants' termination
demonstrates the inherent need for these
services. This act of outsourcing, which
effectively replaced one set of workers with
another, further underscores that the work in
question was neither temporary nor
occasional.
14. xxx
15. xxx
16. The appellants' consistent
performance over their long tenures further
solidifies their claim for regularization. At no
point during their engagement did the
respondents raise any issues regarding their
competence or performance. On the contrary,
their services were extended repeatedly over
the years, and their remuneration, though
minimal, was incrementally increased which
was an implicit acknowledgment of their
satisfactory performance. The respondents'
belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service
appears to be an afterthought and lacks
credibility.
17. As for the argument relating to
educational qualifications, we find it untenable in
the present context. The nature of duties the
appellants performed--cleaning, sweeping, dusting,
and gardening--does not inherently mandate
formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust
to rely on educational criteria that were never
central to their engagement or the performance of
their duties for decades. Moreover, the
respondents themselves have, by their conduct,
shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced
in other cases of regularization. The appellants'
long-standing satisfactory performance itself
attests to their capability to discharge these
functions, making rigid insistence on formal
educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.
18. xxx
19. It is evident from the foregoing that
the appellants' roles were not only essential but
also indistinguishable from those of regular
employees. Their sustained contributions over
extended periods, coupled with absence of any
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and
regularization of their services. Denial of this
benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination,
amounts to manifest injustice and must be
rectified.
20. It is well established that the
decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend
to penalize employees who have rendered
long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its
instrumentalities. 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 India5, 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
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
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..."
21. The High Court placed undue
emphasis on the initial label of the appellants'
engagements and the outsourcing decision
taken after their dismissal. Courts must look
beyond the surface labels and consider the
realities of employment : continuous, long-
term service, indispensable duties, and
absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their
appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original
terms did not explicitly state so, or because
an outsourcing policy was belatedly
introduced, would be contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.
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
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
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.
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
• 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
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
Again, the Apex Court in the case of SHRIPAL v.
NAGAR NIGAM [2025 SCC OnLine SC 221], has held
as follows:
"3. The factual matrix leading up to the
appeal before us is as follows:
3.1. The Appellant Workmen claim to have
been engaged as Gardeners (Malis) in the
Horticulture Department of the Respondent
Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, since the year
1998 (in some instances, since 1999). According to
them, they continuously discharged horticultural
and maintenance duties-- such as planting trees,
maintaining parks, and beautifying public spaces--
under the direct supervision of the Respondent
Employer. They further allege that no formal
appointment letters were ever issued to them, and
that they were persistently denied minimum
wages, weekly offs, national holidays, and other
statutory benefits.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
3.2. In 2004, the Appellant Workmen,
along with many other similarly situated
employees, raised an industrial dispute (C.B. Case
No. 6 of 2004) before the Conciliation Officer at
Ghaziabad, seeking regularization of their services
and the requisite statutory benefits. They contend
that, upon learning of this demand, the Respondent
Employer began delaying their salaries and
subjected them to adverse working conditions.
Eventually, around mid-July 2005, the services of
numerous workmen were allegedly terminated
orally, without any notice, written orders, or
retrenchment compensation.
3.3. Since the above termination took
place during the pendency of the conciliation
proceedings, the Appellant Workmen argue it
violated Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Consequently, the State Government
referred the disputes concerning both (i)
regularization and (ii) legality of the alleged
termination, to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad for
adjudication.
3.4. The Labour Court proceeded to decide
the references vide two orders:
(i) Order dated 03.06.2011 : In numerous
adjudication cases (e.g., Adjudication Case
Nos. 448, 451, 467 of 2006, etc.), the
Labour Court passed awards holding the
terminations illegal for want of compliance
with Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and directed
reinstatement with 30% back wages.
(ii) Order dated 11.10.2011 : However, in
about 41 other adjudication cases (e.g.,
Adjudication Case Nos. 269, 270, 272,
etc.), the Labour Court arrived at a
contrary conclusion, dismissing the claims
on the finding that the concerned workmen
had not been engaged directly by the
Nagar Nigam but rather through a
contractor, and hence had no enforceable
right to reinstatement or regularization
against the Respondent Employer.
3.5. Aggrieved by the adverse portion of
the awards (i.e., those granting reinstatement),
the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar
Nigam, filed several writ petitions before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the
Labour Court's findings. On the other hand, the
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
workmen whose claims were dismissed by the
other set of awards also approached the High Court
by filing their own writ petitions. All these writ
petitions were heard together, culminating in the
common judgment dated 01.03.2019, which partly
modified the Labour Court's conclusions.
3.6. Through the impugned judgment,
the High Court held that while the Labour
Court was correct in exercising jurisdiction
under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (since
municipalities could be treated as "industry"),
there remained factual complexities as to
whether the workmen were genuinely on the
rolls of the Nagar Nigam or were provided by
contractors. The High Court also noted that
the State Government had, by
notifications/orders, placed a ban on fresh
recruitments in Municipal Corporations,
thereby restricting direct appointments to any
post. Ultimately, the High Court partially
modified the relief granted, directing re-
engagement of the workmen on daily wages,
with pay equivalent to the minimum in the
regular pay scale of Gardeners, while allowing
future consideration of their regularization if
permissible by law.
4. Both the Appellant Workmen and the
Respondent Employer have now approached this
Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. The
workmen primarily seek full reinstatement with
back wages and a direction to secure their
regularization, whereas the Respondent Employer
seeks to quash the modifications ordered by the
High Court on the ground that the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction by granting partial relief
akin to regular employees, contrary to
constitutional provisions and the State's ban on
recruitment.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant
Workmen made the following submissions:
I. Continuous Service & Comparable Duties :
The Appellant Workmen had continuously
discharged horticultural and maintenance duties--
like planting trees, upkeep of public parks, and
general beautification--under the direct supervision
and control of the Respondent Employer for periods
often exceeding a decade. They insist such
longstanding, continuous work parallels that of
permanent Gardeners.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
II. Direct Engagement & Wage Disbursement :
They aver that their wages, though inadequate,
were paid directly by the Horticulture Department
of the Respondent Employer, nullifying the
Employer's claim of contractual hiring. Muster rolls
and internal notes are cited to show direct
employer-employee relations.
III. Illegal Termination : Alleging violation of
Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the Appellant Workmen maintain their
abrupt termination in July 2005 (during pendency
of conciliation proceedings) was devoid of due
process and statutory payments, rendering it
patently illegal.
IV. Entitlement to Reinstatement &
Regularization : Given their long service and the
principle of "equal pay for equal work," the
Appellant Workmen submit they deserve full
reinstatement with back wages and a legitimate
pathway to regularization, as opposed to the partial
relief of mere daily-wage re-engagement
prescribed by the High Court.
6. On the other, the learned counsel for the
Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam
made the following submissions:
I. Compliance with Constitutional
Requirements : Emphasizing the constitutional
scheme of public employment, it is urged that
there was (and remains) a ban on fresh
recruitment in Municipal Corporations, and no
proper selection process was ever followed to
appoint the Workmen on any sanctioned posts.
II. No Direct Employer-Employee
Relationship : The Respondent Employer
contends that all horticulture work was carried out
through independent contractors appointed via
tender processes. It claims any partial wage
documentation cited by the Workmen fails to
establish direct engagement.
III. Inapplicability of Regularization : Relying
on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1, it is
asserted that no daily wager can claim permanent
absorption without adherence to constitutional
requirements and availability of duly sanctioned
vacancies.
IV. Inadequate Proof of 240 Days' Service :
The Respondent Employer points out that the
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
Workmen did not convincingly demonstrate they
completed 240 days of continuous work in any
calendar year, thus undermining the assertion that
their cessation from service was illegal.
V. Challenge to Modified Relief: Finally, it
argues that the High Court's direction to pay
minimum-scale wages and to consider the
Workmen for future regularization oversteps legal
boundaries, disregards the recruitment ban, and
fosters an impermissible avenue of public
employment. The Respondent Employer, therefore,
seeks the quashing of the impugned judgment.
7. Having heard the arguments and
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the nature of engagement
of the Appellant Workmen, the admitted shortage
of Gardeners, and the circumstances under which
their services were brought to an end, merit closer
scrutiny.
8. It is undisputed that, while the Appellant
Workmen were pressing for regularization and
proper wages through pending conciliation
proceedings, the Respondent Employer proceeded
to discontinue their services, without issuing prior
notice or granting retrenchment compensation. At
this juncture, it is to have a look at the
requirements of Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 which has been reproduced
hereunder:--
"6E. [Conditions of service, etc. to
remain unchanged in certain circumstances
during the pendency of proceedings.
[Inserted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957.]
(1) During the pendency of any conciliation
proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or
a Board or of any proceeding before a
Labour Court or Tribunal in respect of an
industrial dispute, no employer shall, -
(a) in regard to any matter connected
with the dispute, alter, to the
prejudice of the workmen
concerned in such dispute, the
conditions of service applicable to
them immediately before the
commencement of such
proceeding, or
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
(b) for any misconduct connected with
the dispute, discharge or punish,
whether by dismissal or otherwise
any workman concerned in such
dispute save with the express
permission in writing of the
authority before which the
proceeding is pending.
(2) During the pendency of any such
proceeding in respect of an industrial
dispute, the employer may, in accordance
with the standing orders applicable to a
workman concerned in such dispute, -
(a) alter, in regard to any matter not
connected with the dispute, the
conditions of service applicable to
that workman immediately before
the commencement of such
proceeding, or
(b) for any misconduct not connected
with the dispute, discharge or
punish, whether by dismissal or
otherwise:
Provided that no such workman
shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he
has been paid wages for one month and an
application has been made by the employer
to the authority before which the
proceeding is pending for approval of the
action taken by the employer.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-section (2) no employer shall during
the pendency of any such proceeding in
respect of an industrial dispute, take any
action against any protected workman
concerned in such dispute, -
(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such
protected workman, the conditions
of service applicable to him
immediately before the
commencement of such
proceeding, or
(b) by discharging or punishing,
whether by dismissal or otherwise,
such protected workman, such with
the express permission in writing of
the authority before which the
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
proceeding is pending. Explanation.
- For the purposes of this sub-
section, a 'protected workman' in
relation to an establishment,
means a workman who, being an
officer of a registered trade union
connected with the establishment,
is recognized as such in accordance
with rules made in this behalf.
(4) In every establishment, the number
of workmen to be recognized as protected
workmen for the purposes of sub-section
(3) shall not exceed one per cent of the
total number of workmen employed therein
subject to a minimum number of five
protected workmen and a maximum
number of one hundred protected workmen
and for the aforesaid purpose, the State
Government may make rules providing for
the distribution of such protected workmen
among various trade unions, if any,
connected with the establishment and the
manner in which they may be chosen and
recognized as protected workmen.
(5) Where an employer makes an
application to a Board, Labour Court or
Tribunal under the proviso to sub-section
(2) for approval of the action taken by him,
the authority concerned shall, without
delay, hear such application and pass, as
expeditiously as possible, such order in
relation thereto as it deems fit."
9. On a plain reading of this
section, we can deduce that any unilateral
alteration in service conditions, including
termination, is impermissible during the
pendency of such proceedings unless prior
approval is obtained from the appropriate
authority. The record in the present case
does not indicate that the Respondent
Employer ever sought or was granted the
requisite approval. Prima facie, therefore,
this conduct reflects a deliberate attempt
to circumvent the lawful claims of the
workmen, particularly when their dispute
over regularization and wages remained
sub judice.
10. The Respondent Employer
consistently labelled the Appellant Workmen as
casual employees (or workers engaged through
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
an unnamed contractor), yet there is no
material proof of adherence to Section 6N of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which
mandates a proper notice or wages in lieu
thereof as well as retrenchment compensation.
In this context, whether an individual is
classified as regular or temporary is irrelevant
as retrenchment obligations under the Act must
be met in all cases attracting Section 6N. Any
termination thus effected without statutory
safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly.
11. xxxx
12. xxxx
13. xxxx
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 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
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
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:
"xxxxxxxxx"
16. xxx
17. xxx
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
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
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 long-time
employees are not indefinitely
retained on daily wages contrary to
statutory and equitable norms.
19. In view of the above, the appeal(s)
filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the
appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are
dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by the
Apex Court in the afore-quoted cases, which were in the
aftermath of the judgment in the case of UMADEVI (3)
supra, would in unmistakable terms indicate that
regularization of employees is not a concept that is
obliterated, but could be considered on several
parameters laid down in the said judgments. One
unmistakable stream that runs through judicial thinking
of judgments of the Apex Court is that, regularization of
the services of the employees engaged to work for the
State for long years should be considered, failing which,
it would amount to violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India."
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
15. In the light of the issue standing covered by the
judgments quoted supra, the petition deserves to succeed
with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the case of
these petitioners for regularization of their services from the
date on which they completed 10 years from the date of their
initial appointment. It is further germane to notice the
Subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND
ANOTHER [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735], wherein the Apex
Court has held as follows:
"8. 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.
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)
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
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 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 (i), within three
months of this Judgment.
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
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 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"
16. The Apex Court holds that keeping the persons in
continuous ad hoc employment would itself become arbitrary
and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In
that light, the direction would ensue to the respondents to
consider the case of these petitioners to regularise their
services."
16. In the light of the issue having been completely
answered by the judgment of this Court referred to supra, and
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17054
HC-KAR
the judgment of the Apex Court in DHARAM SINGH, the petition
deserves to succeed.
17. The respondents are directed to consider the case of
the petitioner for regularisation of his services strictly in
accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in
the course of this order, within an outer limit of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
AC
CT:ANB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30
