Patna High Court
Lalbihari Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 6 February, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1818 of 2025
======================================================
1. Lalbihari Yadav, (Male), aged about-36 years, S/o- Bhuneshwar Yadav,
Resident of Village- Turibujurg, Gaya, P.S.-Magadh University, District-
Gaya.
2. Hriday Kumar, (Male), aged about-36 years, S/o- Ramdev Yadav, Resident
of Village- Turibujurg, Gaya, P.S.-Magadh University, District- Gaya.
3. Ramvriksh Manjhi, (Male), aged about-44 years, S/o- Rohan Manjhi,
Resident of Village- Rampur, Gaya, P.S.- Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director, Higher Education, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Magadh University, Bodh Gaya through its Registrar.
5. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.
6. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.
7. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the M.U. : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Kunwar, Advocate
Mrs. Rashmi Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel (18)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2025
Heard Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Sriram Krishna, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Magadh University and learned SC-
18 appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.1818 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
writ petition have sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:
"I) For commanding the Respondents to
Regularise the services of the petitioner's on their
respective Posts, since the Petitioner's are
uninterruptedly working in the services of the
Magadh University from the date of their
appointment i.e. on 22.06.2007 on daily wage basis
and are performing the duties which are Perennial
in nature and are Indispensable.
II) For commanding the respondents to
grant consequential reliefs to the petitioner's after
their Regularisation, since the Petitioner's are
working as daily wagers in the services of the
Magadh University for 17 long years and no
complaint whatsoever has been made against the
petitioners from any authority, till date and persons
appointed on daily wages in 2009 i.e. after the
appointment of the petitioners, have already been
regularised in the services of the University in 2018,
but the Petitioners have been left out for the reasons
best known to the Respondent authorities.
III) For grant of any other relief/reliefs
to which the petitioner may be found entitled for."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners have filed detailed
representations before the Vice-Chancellor of the Magadh
University for regularization of their services on 02.01.2025,
however, no action has been taken till date on the said
representations.
4. Considering the relief sought for in the present writ
petition, as well as, submission made on behalf of the
petitioners, I find it proper to direct the Vice-Chancellor of the
Magadh University to verify, as to whether, the petitioners were
Patna High Court CWJC No.1818 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
engaged/appointed on the sanctioned vacant post and, thereafter,
take necessary steps and consider the representations of the
petitioners in light of the recent law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024), wherein the Apex Court relying on
its judgment passed in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union
of India & Ors., reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1230 has made
following observations in Paragraph Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and
27, which are reproduced hereinafter:
"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 judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and
Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.[2024] 1 S.C.R.
1230, it was held that held that procedural
formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of
service to an employee whose appointment was
termed "temporary" but has performed the same
duties as performed by the regular employee over a
considerable period in the capacity of the regular
employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have
been reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in
Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit
squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants were
Patna High Court CWJC No.1818 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
employed and have continued their service. The
reliance on procedural formalities at the outset
cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their promotion was
based on a specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection process
involving written tests and interviews, which
distinguishes their case from the appointments
through back door entry as discussed in the case of
Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgement 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1818 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding
member, has consistently advocated for employment
stability and the fair treatment of workers. The
ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration
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.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that
temporary employees, particularly in government
institutions, often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly
become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations
owed to employees. These practices manifest in
several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential,
recurring, and integral to the functioning of an
institution are often labeled as "temporary" or
"contractual, even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such misclassification deprives
workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed without cause or
notice, as seen in the present case. This practice
undermines the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity,
regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression:
Temporary employees often find themselves
excluded from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between them and their regular counterparts,
despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with another.
This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but
also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied fundamental
benefits such as pension, provident fund, health
Patna High Court CWJC No.1818 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
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.
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."
5. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently
reiterated the same in the case of Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal Nos. 8158-8179 of 2024),
wherein, in paragraphs no. 14 and 15, the Apex Court has held
as follows:
"14. The Respondent Employer places
reliance on Umadevi (supra) 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1818 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
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 judgement of this court in Jaggo v.
Union of India."
6. With the above observation/direction, the present
writ petition stands disposed of.
7. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.02.2025
Transmission Date N/A
