Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pappu Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 29 April, 2025
[2024:RJ-JD:42441]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7603/2023
Giriraj Prasad Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
With Connected matters1
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, Mr. Gopal Lal Acharya, Mr. Moti Singh,
Mr.Mukesh Vyas, Mr. P.R. Mehta, Mr. Pradeep Shah, Mr. J.S.
Bhaleria, Mr. Ashvini Swami, Mr. K.S.S. Charan, Mr. D.S. Sodha,
Mr. Vinay Jain, Mr. A.A. Sharma, Mr. Sukesh Bhati, Mr. Deelip
Kawadia, Mr. Ravindra Singh, Mr. Harish Purohit, Mr. Vishal
Thakur, Mr. S.K. Malik, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat, Mr. V.R.
Choudhary, Mr. P.D. Bohra, Mr. Rakesh Arora, Mr. S.K. Verma,
Mr. Nikhil Jain, Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla, Mr. Sunil Bhandari,
Mr. Amit Mehta, Mr. M.C. Gupta, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Mr. Khet
Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Ravindra Paliwal, Mr. Sunil Joshi, Mr. RS
Saluja, Mr. Sukesh Bhati, Mr. Abhishek Bohra, Mr. Sukhdev
Patel, Mr. VR Choudhary, Mr. Harishit Bhurani, Mr. CVS
Shekhawat, Mr. Darshan Jain, Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore, Mr.
Kailash Jangid, Mr. CP Trivedi, Mr. MS Godara, Mr. Pawan Singh,
Mr. BL Kudan, Mr. Pramendra Bohra, Mr. Shreyash Ramdev,
Mr.Gopal Acharya, Mr. Surendra Thanvi, Ms. Varsha Bissa,
Ms.Nidhi Singhvi, Ms. Twinkle Purohit, Ms. Tanya Mehta, and
Mr.Lucky Rajpurohit, Mr. Divik Mathur, Mr. Manvendra Singh,
Mr. Pramendra Bohra.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by
Mr. A.S. Shekhawat.
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, Addl. Advocate General
Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, Dy. G.C.
Mr. Pawan Bharti.
Mr. B.L. Bhati, Addl. Advocate General assisted by
Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG.
Dr. Praveen Khandelwal - AAG
Ms. Yashvi Khandelwal
Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC.
Ms. Rakhi Choudhary, Dy. G.C.
Mr. Deepak Vaishnav
Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy. G.C.
Mr. Vaibhav Bang
1
As tabulated in para 2.1 of instant judgment.
(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:08:17 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (2of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
Amicus Curiae:
Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat &
Mr. Manvendra Singh assisted by
Ms. Saumya Choudhary
Ms. Ananya Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Judgment
Reserved on 19.02.2025 (Some petitions Reserved on
20.02.2025 and 26.03.2025)
Pronounced on 29/04/2025
1. Caught in a state of prolonged uncertainty of their
employment, petitioners before this Court are seeking protection
of their rights. Despite performing duties equivalent to those of
their regularly appointed counterparts, they continue to be denied
equality. Trapped between the aspiration for regularization of job
and working without any break for years together (10-30 years)
on inadequate pay, they are neither in a position to resign for
alternative employment nor to endure continued exploitation.
They thus yearn for pay parity with their counterparts, who
perform similar tasks. Primary reason of discrimination and
financial hardship is the irregular mode of their recruitment,
which, though not illegal, has led to their current plight. The
existential insecurity they face is aptly captured by the timeless
lyrics of the song titled "Blowing in the wind"2 i.e.
How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail before she sleeps in the sand?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.
These lines mirror the despair, frustration, and helplessness that
permeate the lives of the petitioners. The current situation--
Bob Dylan
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (3of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
whether arising from administrative apathy, oversight, or exigency
-- is a crisis of the State's own making.
1.1. The specter of the Uma Devi judgment continues to haunt,
as the State grapples with it. Whether due to circumstance,
chance, or oversight, the stark reality remains that a solution
must be found to alleviate the hardships and harsh treatment
meted out to the petitioners, who are not blameworthy. The Uma
Devi judgment has become a double-edged weapon, as both sides
rely upon the same. While the respondents (employer) are
invoking it as a shield to defend their actions, the petitioners
(employees) are wielding it as a sword, arguing that the
respondents are distorting the true spirit, intent, and purpose of
the Supreme Court's ruling. The unsavoury situation is self
created by the State, whether unwittingly or fortuitously or by
circumstances beyond control, as the case may be. The
imperatives of constitutional morality warrant that appointments
irregular in form but not in substance--backed by sanctioned posts
and years of continuous service--must not anymore remain at the
mercy of procedural rigidity. For a solution to remedy the
hardships treatment meted out to the petitioners for no fault of
theirs, steps are required to restore the rule of law, ensure equity,
and vindicate the legitimate expectations of those who have
served the State in good faith.
1.2. The pivotal question that arises is whether this Court, within
its writ jurisdiction, can direct the State to frame appropriate
criteria for assessing eligibility, and thereafter regularize the
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (4of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
petitioners' services without compelling them to undergo a fresh
selection process?
1.3. In exercising its constitutional duty to uphold fairness in
public employment and to remedy the administrative injustice,
this Court most certainly cannot remain a passive observer.
Guided by binding judicial precedents, service jurisprudence, and
constitutional morality, let us delve into the specifics in the
succeeding part here in after.
FACTS:
2. Petitioners were appointed/employed on various posts, many
of them as far back as in the year 1979 (SBCWP No.14903/2027).
They are continuing in service since then. However, their services
have not been regularized. Hence they seek directions to the
respondents to regularize their services and grant consequential
benefits.
2.1. Following tables show their initial dates of appointments and
respective posts:-
Table-(1) - Pertaining to CLASS-IV Employees (reserved on
19.02.2025)
Sr. No. CWP No. Petitioners Appointed Post Office/Department
names on
1. 7603/2023 Giriraj 25.01.1991 Class-IV Primary Health
Prasad Centre, Mal
Sharma (Dungarpur)
2. 3686/2010 Smt. 05.07.1995 Sweeper Ashram Hostel,
Bhagwanti Munjava,
Chittorgarh
3. 27/2007 Madhu Ram 11.11.2002 Cook Social Welfare
Department,
Jaisalmer
4. 7801/2014 Hari Singh 01.02.1994 Class-IV Govt. Upper Primary
Shekhawat School, Kalwal
5. 1756/2015 Alpesh Patel Feb, 2002 Cook cum Primary, Upper
& 9 others onwards Helper Primary &
Secondary Schools
6. 3770/2015 Gyan Chand 1991 to Sweeper Various Panchayat
& 12 others 1995 Samities
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (5of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
7. 7908/2015 Kamla Devi 1991 Sweeper Panchayat Samities
& Anr.
8. 1710/2016 Swaroop 13.08.1987 Class-IV Panchayat Samiti,
Singh Mandalgarh
9. 2694/2016 Ram Prasad 01.02.1981 Class-IV Govt. Primary
Vaishnav (Peon) School, Shahpura,
Bhilwara
10. 5411/2016 Chain Singh 03.08.1987 Peon Gram Panchayat,
Osian
11. 8627/2016 Gayatri 2004 Cook Govt. Scheduled
Damor Caste Girls Hostel,
Bichhiwara
12. 8628/2016 Smt. Huraj 1999 Cook Govt. Scheduled
Caste Girls Hostel,
Bichhiwara
13. 8831/2016 Smt. Ramila 2006 Cook Govt. Scheduled
Caste Girls Hostel,
Bichhiwara
14. 8883/2016 Smt. Basanti 2006 Cook Govt. Scheduled
alias Diksha Caste Girls Hostel,
Bichhiwara
15. 2779/2017 Shankar Lal 13.06.1990 Ward Boy Medical & Health
Bhati Department, Pali
16. 12711/2017 Dal Singh 2008 Class-IV Department of
Primary Education
17. 14903/2017 Jagdish 13.10.1979 Class-IV Elementary
Chandra Education
Tiwari
18. 15468/2017 Sharda 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
19. 15469/2017 Kalu Ram 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
20. 15472/2017 Sayar Mal 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
21. 15474/2017 Kamla 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
22. 15475/2017 Badami 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Devi Karamchari Department
23. 15476/2017 Vala Ram 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
24. 15480/2017 Sukhi Devi 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
25. 15492/2017 Leela 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
26. 15498/2017 Vimla 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
27. 15602/2017 Chhagna 1995 & Safai Panchayati Raj
Ram & 3 1998 Karamchari Department
others
28. 15709/2017 Mangi Lal 04.07.2008 Class-IV Panchayati Raj
Meena Department
29. 15788/2017 Anopa Ram 07.10.2006 Class-IV Panchayati Raj
Department
30. 15789/2017 Insaf Shah 04.07.2008 Class-IV Panchayati Raj
Department
31. 15790/2017 Deva Ram 09.10.2006 Class-IV Panchayati Raj
Kumhar Department
32. 15791/2017 Amra Ram 17.10.2007 Class-IV Panchayati Raj
Department
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (6of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
33. 15813/2017 Sanjay 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Kumar Karamchari Department
34. 15814/2017 Hulasi 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
35. 15815/2017 Remati 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
36. 15816/2017 Kashi Ram 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
37. 15817/2017 Kalu Ram 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
38. 16407/2017 Sajid 01.03.2006 Computer Ayurved University,
Hussain Operator Karwar, Jodhpur
cum
LDC
39. 2191/2018 Pyari Devi 14.01.1991 Safai Panchayati Raj
Karamchari Department
40. 5049/2018 Hakim 08.12.1986 LDC Panchayati Raj
Mohammad Department
Pathan
41. 7898/2018 Rajendra 01.07.2002 Shiksha Primary School,
Kumar Karmi Zhamela, Pali
Girasiya
42. 986/2020 Dinesh 09.05.2011 Sahayak Panchayat Samiti,
Kumar Karamchari Pali
Meena
43. 3829/2023 Babu Lal April, 1995 Peon Panchayat Samiti,
Marwar Junction,
Pali
44. 4783/2023 Imran & 4 09.01.2014 Attendant Department of
others (Helper) Medical & Health
45. 14882/2023 Hari Lal 01.11.1988 Sweeper Panchayat Samiti,
Bagrecha Bali, Pali
46. 9248/2024 Bhanwar Lal 15.05.2013 Security Atal Sewa Kendra,
& 3 others Guard Panchayat Samiti,
Rani Pali
Table-(2) - Pertaining to CLASS-III Employees (reserved on
19.02.2025)
Sr. No. CWP No. Petitioners Appointed Post Office/Department
names on
1. 6915/2010 Smt. Prem 04.09.1996 Teacher Gr.-III Elementary
Lata Education, Udaipur
2. 5080/2012 Smt. Manju 07.07.2000 Multi Purpose Medical & Health
Pancholi Worker (MPW) Department
(Female)
3. 7206/2014 Jeeval 13.05.2003, ANM/Health Medical & Health
Kumar &4 19.09.2003, Workers Department
Ors. 06.10.2003 (Female)
4. 8576/2014 Raja Ram 22.02.1991 LDC Sainik School,
Sharma Chittorgarh
5. 3409/2015 Gopal Kalla 10.12.1997, Jr. E.N. Sarwa Siksha
&5 Ors. 16.05.1996, Abhiyan
10.12.1997,
10.12.1997,
15.09.1995
&
10.12.1997
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (7of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
6. 145/2016 Ravi 08.02.2002, Senior Govt. Engineering
Shankar 10.07.2003 Technician & College, Bikaner
Bhobia &3 Computer
Ors. Operator
7. 2070/2016 Chhagan 14.01.1997 Teacher Gr.-III Zila Parishad,
Singh Rawat Bhilwara
8. 2071/2016 Smt. Indra 22.03.1999 Teacher Gr.-III Zila Parishad,
Jat Bhilwara
9. 2072/2016 Smt. Lalita 24.09.2001 Teacher Gr.-III Zila Parishad,
Choudhary Bhilwara
10. 2073/2016 Karuna 03.07.2002 Teacher Gr.-III Zila Parishad,
Bhilwara
11. 2077/2016 Ridhkaran 06.03.1997 Teacher Gr.-III Zila Parishad,
Jat Bhilwara
12. 9647/2016 Smt. Rekha 31.05.2001 Para Teacher Elementary
Bunkar Salvi Education, Udaipur
13. 14069/2016 Rita Rawal 01.05.1999 Shiksha Panchayat Samiti
Sahyogi Sagwara, Dungarpur
14. 977/2017 Yogesh October, Junior Instructor ITI, Jodhpur
Meena & 2010
Anr.
15. 3998/2017 Devkinanda 01.01.2001 Para Teacher Elementary
n Purohit Education,
Ganganagar
16. 15467/2017 Pappu Ram 01.07.2004 Pump PHED,
& Driver Jodhpur
30 Ors
17. 16768/2017 Mrs. Chanda 08.07.2002 Shiksha Elementary
Jagetiya Sahayogi Education,
Chittorgarh
18. 2086/2018 Mangla Ram 1990 to Shiksha Karmi Elementary
Rathore & 1998 & Senior Education,
10 Ors. Shiksha Karmi Banswara
Teachers
19. 3538/2018 Ashok 02.01.2012 Pump Panchayat Samiti
Kumar & 2 27.01.1997 Driver
Ors.
20. 5661/2018 Smt. Neelam 18.09.1998 Teacher Panchayat Samiti,
Rastogi Ladnu, District
Nagaur
21. 15478/2018 Iqbal Khan 03.10.2007 Lab Technician Medical & Health
22. 922/2020 Yogesh 30.06.1997 Teacher Gr.-III Primary Education
Ladha (on
behalf of
deceased
mother)
23. 2433/2020 Mangal 20.03.2001 Shiksha Panchayati Ram
Khan Sahyogi Department
(Madarsa)
24. 3656/2021 Hitesh 05.05.2010 Jr. Technical Panchayat Samiti,
Chandra Assistant Banswara
Upadhyay
25. 6224/2021 Savita 03.06.2010 ANM CMHO, Pratapgarh
Pandore
26. 12730/2021 Tejpal Singh 27.07.2007 Nurse Gr.-II Medical & Health,
GNM Seoganj, Sirohi
27. 13483/2021 Pushpa Joshi 23.07.1993 Precheta Department of
Women and Child
Development, Jaipur
28. 13698/2021 Kusum 23.07.1993 Precheta Department of
Upadhyay Women and Child
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (8of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
Development, Jaipur
29. 17232/2021 Manish 01.10.2007 Public Health Medical & Health
Seervi & Nurse / Department, Pali
Anr. Nurse Gr.-II
30. 3005/2022 Babu Lal 2010 & Instructor ITI, Jodhpur
Prajapat & 3 2011
Ors.
31. 5614/2022 Ashu Ram & 2001, 2002 Pump Driver/ PHED, Nagaur
3 Ors. & 2010 Operator
32. 11937/2022 Nagendra 2014 & Assistant Gram Sewa Sehakari
Shaktawat & 2016 Manager Samiti,
4 Ors.
33. 11945/2022 Surya 16.09.2013 Assistant Registrar,
Prakash Manager Cooperative
Societies
34. 11109/2023 Munni 14.09.2005 ANM Medical & Health
Kumari Department,
Goswami Udaipur
35. 14142/2023 Smt. Sonu 04.04.2013 Computor Medical & Health
Balai & Anr. Operator Department,
Bhilwara
36. 14244/2023 Minakshi 15.09.2012 Computor Medical & Health
Tripati & 2 Operator cum Department,
Ors. Machine Man Bhilwara
37. 14838/2023 Prashant 28.11.2009 Nurse Medical & Health
Mahatma Gr.-II Department,
Jain Udaipur
Table-(3) - Pertaining to CLASS-IV Employees (reserved on
20.02.2025)
Sr. No. CWP No. Petitioners Appointed Post Office/Department
names on
1 6604/2016 Hawji 01.01.1996 Hand Pump Panchayat Samiti,
Meena Mistry Arnod, Distt.
Chittorgarh
2 6606/2016 Bhagwati lal 01.01.1996 Hand Pump Panchayat Samiti,
Meena Mistry Arnod, Distt.
Chittorgarh
3 6607/2016 Balu Ram 01.01.1996 Hand Pump Panchayat Samiti,
Meena Mistry Arnod, Distt.
Chittorgarh
4 6608/2016 Mahendra 01.01.1996 Hand Pump Panchayat Samiti,
Singh Mistry Arnod, Distt.
Chittorgarh
5 6610/2016 Nand Lal 01.01.1996 Hand Pump Panchayat Samiti,
Meena Mistry Arnod, Distt.
Chittorgarh
6 6611/2016 Snati Lal 01.01.1996 Hand Pump Panchayat Samiti,
Meena Mistry Arnod, Distt.
Chittorgarh
7 6612/2016 Mohan Lal 01.01.1996 Hand Pump Panchayat Samiti,
Meena Mistry Arnod, Distt.
Chittorgarh
8 6613/2016 Ram 01.01.1996 Hand Pump Panchayat Samiti,
Chandra Mistry Arnod, Distt.
Meena Chittorgarh
9 6615/2016 Lal Nahadur 01.01.1996 Hand Pump Panchayat Samiti,
Meena Mistry Arnod, Distt.
Chittorgarh
10 9929/2017 Hukum Lal 21.09.1978 Cycle Rakshak Sent. Mathuradas
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (9of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
Vyas Binana Govt.
College, Nathdwara
11 7216/2022 Vijay 03.03.1989 Labour/Daily Principal, Sardul
Shankar Wages Sports School,
Vyas Employee Gikaner
Table-(4) - Pertaining to CLASS-IV Employees (reserved on
26.03.2025)
Sr. No. CWP No. Petitioners Appointed Post Office/Department
names on
1 18708/2024 Shri Niwas Oct., 1995 Class-IV Zila Parishad,
Samdani & & Nov., Chittorgarh
Anr. 1996
Table-(5) - Pertaining to CLASS-III Employees (reserved on
26.03.2025)
Sr. No. CWP No. Petitioners Appointed Post Office/Department
names on
1. 4671/2023 Prakash 2007 & Assistant Panchayati Raj
Suthar & 2 2015 Employee & Department,
others Block Udaipur
Coordinator
2. 4366/2023 Dinesh 29.11.2007 Block Panchayat Samiti,
Kumar Coordinator Badgaon, Udaipur
3 4391/2023 Chetanya 17.10.2007 Block Panchayati Samiti,
Prakash Coordinator Girwa, Udaipur
Sharma
3. In the course of earlier hearings, orders dated 16.05.2024
and 27.05.2024 were passed by this Bench. Being apposite, same
are being reproduced as under:-
"Dt. 16.05.2024
Looking at the larger ramifications involved in the case, since
almost all the departments of the State Government are hiring
contractual employees who, after rendering their continuous services
of as long as 15 to 20 years, are seeking regularization, it is deemed
more appropriate that the Chief Secretary of the State Government be
impleaded as a respondent herein. It is so ordered.
The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections
to add the name of the State of Rajasthan, i.e., respondent No. 1 (a),
who shall thus be represented through the Chief Secretary along with
the Administrative Secretary of the department as respondent no.
1(b).
The Chief Secretary to file a comprehensive affidavit regarding
the State Government's stand on the regularization policy, which is
expected to be applied in the State.
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (10of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
Learned Advocate General is requested to render his worthy
assistance on behalf of the state. If it is not possible for him to appear
in person before this Court, since he is seated at Jaipur, he may join
the proceedings through video conferencing. Mr. Anirudh Singh
appears on behalf of the learned Advocate General and states that he
has been informed by his office that the Advocate General shall be
available in Jodhpur on 27.05.2024. In the premise, at his request,
list on 27.05.2024."
Dt. 27.05.2024
"1. Matter was partheard on 16.05.2024and on resumed hearing
today, learned Advocate General has also rendered his able
assistance. He fairly states that given the nature of controversy, a
wholesome decision has to be taken by formulating the policy
parameters governing the individual claims of the petitioners qua the
regularization of their services.
2. He would further submit that taking a humanitarian view qua
the Class IV employees, who have rendered services for more than
10-20 years, is one aspect of the matter, butunder the garb thereof to
promote exploitation through backdoor entry and / or recruitment of
those candidates based on sheer favouratism cannot be encouraged
as has also been laid down by Supreme Court in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), 2006(4) SCC 1.
3. He would suggest that a short accommodation be granted to
enable him toseek proper instructions from the competent authority as
well as enabling the learned Chief Secretary to file a comprehensive
affidavit as was observed by this Court in the previous order dated
16.05.2024.
4. Learned amicus Shri Rajvendra Saraswat has handed over a
compendium of certain legislative enactments which have been
brought about post Uma Devi Judgment in States of Andhra Pradesh,
Kerala, Haryana, Punjab & Mizoram copy of which have been
handed over to learned Advocate General who is requested to pass on
the same to the Chief Secretary and it is expected of him to look into
the same before filing the comprehensive affidavit.
5. Post it on 16.07.2024.
6. In the meanwhile, Registrar Judicial and O.S.D.
(Computerization) to ensure that all the cases of Class IV employee
who have filed writ petitions seeking regularization either on the
ground that their case is not being considered or their
representations have been pending before the State authorities be
clubbed together. Only for the purpose of compliance of clubbing, be
listed on 30.05.2024. Otherwise, to come up for arguments on
16.07.2024 i.e. date already noted hereinabove. Those of the matters
which do not pertain to Class IV employees, be de-tagged from the
present bunch.
7. Copy of the instant order be conveyed under the signatures of
Court Master."
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (11of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
3.1. Pursuant to aforesaid orders, the Chief Secretary to
Rajasthan Government filed an affidavit dated 21.08.2024
regarding the State Government's stand on the regularization
policy expected to be applied in the State, qua the Class-IV
employees stating therein as under:-
"3. That it is humbly submitted that in compliance of the orders
passed by the Hon'ble Court, a meeting under the Chairmanship of
humble deponent was convened on 04.07.2024, which was also
attended by the learned Advocate General apart from other Officers
of the State. In the meeting detailed deliberations were made on the
issue.
4. That it was considered that in pursuance of judgment passed in
Uma Devi's case, the State Government had already issued
notifications in the year 2009 amending various Service Rules for one
time regularization of employees, keeping in account the conditions to
be specified as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court;
accordingly the actions for regularization of services have been taken
from time to time by various departments. It is submitted that vide
circular dated 29.04.2011, whereby the circulars issued from the year
2003 onwards up to 19.06.2009 were withdrawn, it was directed that
appointments against the posts created on regular basis, shall be
made as per relevant service rules and that no contractual
appointments will be made.
5. That again to cater the need rising in the State Government
Projects/Schemes, Central Government Projects/Schemes and
External Aided Projects, the State Government vide circular dated
27.06.2014 allowed to fill the posts under such projects on contract
basis. It was further considered that Rules, namely Rajasthan
Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to
as the Rules of 2022), have already been enacted in 2022, which came
into force on 11.01.2022. They apply with regard to the posts created
by administrative departments with due concurrence of Finance
Department, for implementation of any Project or Scheme, to persons
appointed on such posts in accordance with the provisions of these
rules or persons working on the posts so created on contract basis on
the date of commencement of these rules, provided his/her selection
was made after inviting applications through public advertisement.
After the Rules of 2022 coming into force, the State Government
withdrew the circular dated 27.06.2014, vide circular dated
01.04.2022.
6. That further vide notification dated 26.07.2023, amendment
has been made in the Rules of 2022 whereby benefit of services prior
to commencement of the Rules of 2022 has been given. Thus, the
policy in so far as it relates to compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's directions issued in Uma Devi's case, 2006 is concerned, the
same is already in place and further rules have also been enacted in
the year 2022. Therefore, the dispute as to whether they are covered
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (12of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
by the Rules amended in 2009 or under the Rules of 2022 are
concerned, they will have to be decided in individual cases.
7. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case, has
clearly directed that the regularization will be only a one time
measure and regularization as a source of employment has been held
to be invalid. However, in specific circumstances, the said case has
been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which may not
necessarily apply to the conditions prevalent in the State.
8. That the contents of various petitions were analyzed and it has
been found that many of them belong to part time employments in
village Panchayats, in Janta Jal Yojna, in MNREGS or through
placement agencies, and as such they do not qualify for any kind of
regularization. In many of the cases, employment itself has been by
incompetent authorities. In many others, the dispute is on aspects
other than regularization. In the aforesaid background, after
deliberations, to assess the actual problem of contractual employees
employed by the Government Departments and fulfilling the
necessary conditions on the basis of which regularization can be
sought, it was decided that information from all the Departments can
be sought before assessing as to whether any fresh policy is required.
It would not be out of place to mention here that way back in the year
2014, circulars/orders were issued debarring the Departments from
employing persons on contract basis.
9. That in response to the letters issued to different departments
calling information as per decision taken in the meeting dated
04.07.2024, information in prescribed proforma was received from
different departments. On the basis of such information, a chart has
been prepared, which is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-
RA-1.
10. That on analysis of information received from various
departments, it would be clear that a fresh policy for dealing with the
issue of regularization is not necessary. The individual cases can be
examined as per the notifications and rules already in place. Further,
from the facts mentioned above, it is also clear that the cases of the
petitioners detailing out different facts and situations, would be
required to be dealt with independently as individual cases."
(emphasis supplied)
3.2. Along with aforesaid affidavit a chart Annexure RA-1 has
been appended showing department-wise status of regularization
cases. Learned Advocate General also urged that the said affidavit
be treated as the State Government's general stand apropos all
the writ petitions as tabulated hereinabove.
3.3. Pertinently, when the aforesaid orders dated 16.05.2024
followed by 27.05.2024 were passed, the same were confined only
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (13of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
to Class-IV employees, but it later transpired that many of the
cases in the bunch, as more specifically mentioned in the tables
(supra), also pertain to Class-III employees.
4. On a Court query to learned Advocate General as to whether
any separate policy and/or Rules have been framed for carrying
out the regularization process of Class-III employees, it transpired
that the procedure and the policy adopted and being implemented
across board is same as meant for Class-IV employees in terms of
the stand taken in the affidavit ibid. Thus the parameters
governing confirmation of employment after regularization qua
Class-III & IV employees remain the same.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties which are more or less on the
same lines as the grounds taken in the pleadings and perused the
case files and shall now proceed to deal with the merits and
demerits thereof and render my opinion based on the discussion
and reasoning contained hereafter.
APPLICABLE LAW, DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS:
6. At the outset, as regards the posts created and persons
hired for the limited period Projects/Schemes and External Aided
Projects, obviously the need and justification for hiring on
contractual basis is valid and legal. Such engagement cannot be
said to be for any perennial nature. Their engagement is governed
by the provisions of Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts
Rules, 2022. It follows that no vested right for regularization of
services would accrue to those whose services were/are hired on
contract basis for the limited periods under the State Government
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (14of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
Projects/Schemes and External Aided Project. As such, any kind of
regularisation qua them shall be governed by Rules of 2022, ibid.
7. For the work of perennial nature, the State Government, it's
functionaries and instrumentalities have to employ the required
persons. We are not concerned here with the appointments which
were/are regular and legal and were initially made by following
the prescribed recruitment Rules/procedure through competitive
process. The case herein is about regularization of services of
those whose initial appointments were either irregular, though not
illegal, or were wholly illegal.
8. Let us first traverse through the evolution resulted by judicial
intervention from time to time in expounding the concept of right
to regularization by sheer longevity of service rendered by those
who are hired, so to speak, through back door.
8.1. In Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi 3, a
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court observed/held, inter alia, as
under:-
"15........If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is
in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be
regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which
is within the power and province of the authority but there has been
some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to
the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a
mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to
introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may
have the effect of setting at naught the rules.
16. In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka : (1979) 4
SCC 507] this court clearly held that the words "regular" or
"regularization" do not connote permanence and cannot be construed
so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They
are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and
are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to
methodology followed in making the appointments. This court
emphasized that when rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise
(2006) 4 SCC 01
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (15of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 of the
Constitution in contravention of the rules. These decisions and the
principles recognized therein have not been dissented to by this Court
and on principle, we see no reason not to accept the proposition as
enunciated in the above decisions. We have, therefore, to keep this
distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that
is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the
process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can
be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting
permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot
be equated with regularization.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
43. ....... It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time
beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be
absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the
strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not
made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the
relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular
recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of
employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the
very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High
Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not
ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or
permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made
regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because
an employee had continued under cover of an order of the Court,
which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the earlier part
of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed
or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High
Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after
all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to
relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner
that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim
direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular
procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying
an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in
ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic
arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional and statutory mandates.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa : [AIR 1967 SC 1071], R.N. Nanjundappa : [(1972) 1
SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarjan (supra), and referred to in para 15
above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might
have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten
years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (16of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to
regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned
posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and
should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill
those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases
where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.
The process must be set in motion within six months from this date.
We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not
subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and
regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per
the constitutional scheme.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
55. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes
department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily
wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are
being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government
service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively
appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from
the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly
gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to
the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular
employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the
dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was
not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State
when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether
these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so
called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been
engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of
the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should
have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to
regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect
from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the
Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage
earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of
employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in
government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners,
there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In
view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue
directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside
that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government
to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the
High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was
regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed
by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard
will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand
allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to
be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by
a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is
undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the
Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (17of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and
giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the
Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent
of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution to do justice to them."
8.2. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari v.State of Jharkhand
& Ors. 4 , the Apex Court observed/directed as under:-
"7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006)
4 SCC 1] was therefore two-fold, 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) 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) and Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247]
sought to avoid.
8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), 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 10-04-
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.
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
(2018) 8 SCC 238
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (18of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
decision within four months from today on regularisation of the status
of the appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of."
8.3. In Jaggo v. Union of India & Others5 decided on
20.12.2024, the Apex Court observed/directed as under :-
"5. Initially, the appellants sought regularization of their services
by filing Original Application No.2211/2015 before the Tribunal.
They contended that over the years, their roles and responsibilities
had evolved beyond the nominal labels of "part-time" or
"contractual" and that they were performing ongoing and core
functions integral to the CWC's operations. They relied on applicable
government instructions and the principle that long-serving
employees, engaged against work of a perennial nature, deserve fair
consideration for regularization, provided their appointments were
not illegal or clandestine. The Tribunal, by its order dated
17.04.2018, dismissed the appellants' plea. It concluded that the
appellants were not engaged on what it considered "regular
vacancies," that they had not completed what it termed as sufficient
"full-time" service (such as meeting a 240-days per year criterion),
and that their case did not attract the principles enabling
regularization. Within ten days after the dismissal of the original
application, on 17.04.2018, the services of all these individuals were
abruptly terminated on 27.10.2018 by the respondent authorities
without issuance of any show-cause notice.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
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
2024 SCC Online SC 3826
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (19of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India, 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 judgement have been reproduced
below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by
the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand,
given the specific circumstances under which the appellants
were employed and have continued their service. The reliance
on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a
considerable period through continuous service. Their
promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies
and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process
involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes
their case from the appointments through back door entry as
discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The 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..."
xxxx xxxx xxxx
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the
practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often
misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-
serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
"illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that
employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly
sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten
years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when
institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of
employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government
departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue
that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where
regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the
judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative
for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and
stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (20of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour
standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices,
government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary
litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice
and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns
with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the
private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment
of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are
allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the
Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the
following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith
and their services regularised forthwith. However, the
appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back
wages for the period they have not worked for but would be
entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the
same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits."
8.4. In Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 6,the
Apex Court observed/directed as under :-
"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 asserted
ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-
wage status or continued unfair practices.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
18.
I. x x x x III.
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
2025 SCC Online SC 221
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (21of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly
situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that
sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the
Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary
administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees
are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to
statutory and equitable norms."
8.5. In Union of India v. K. Velajagan & Ors. 7, the Apex
Court observed/directed as under :-
"2. What appears on a bare reading of the impugned judgment is
that the respondents 1 to 3 were appointed on 20th January, 2005, on
hourly basis, as Lecturers in Motilal Nehru Government Polytechnic
College, Puducherry in its Mechanical Engineering Department.
Such appointment had the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of
Puducherry. Claiming regularization from the date of their
respective appointments and all consequential benefits flowing from
such regularization, the respondents 1 to 3 had moved the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by filing an original
application.
3. Vide judgment and order dated 03 rd April, 2013, the Tribunal
allowed the original application considering that the relief of
regularization had been extended to other similarly situated lecturers
and that the respondents 1 to 3 ought not to be discriminated. It is this
order of the Tribunal that the High Court upheld vide the impugned
judgment and order.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
10. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court, meaning thereby that the
claims of respondents 1 to 3 for regularization are required to be
considered in light of the decision given by the Tribunal, since
affirmed by the High Court....."
8.6. In light of the judgments, ibid, the question as framed in the
opening part of the judgment (para 1.2) is answered by holding
that a constitutional court can, no doubt, exercise its writ
jurisdiction to direct the State to take necessary steps, such as:
establishing recruitment parameters tailored for individuals with
over ten years of uninterrupted service; creating a special class or
category for these individuals, consistent with Supreme Court
rulings in similar cases.
2025 SCC Online SC 837
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (22of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in Uma Devi supra
(decided on 10.04.2006), the Constitution Bench had specifically
directed, inter alia, that the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities shall take steps within six
months of the date of the judgment (10.04.2006) to regularize,
as a one time measure, the services of the irregularly appointed
persons, who had worked for ten years or more and were eligible
for regularization in terms of the criterion laid down therein.
10. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari, supra (decided on 01.08.2018), it
was noted the State of Jharkhand was created on 15.11.2000 and
the State had issued Resolutions on 18.07.2009 and 19.07.2009
permitting regularization of some employees of the State.
Observing that the Regularization Rules must be given a
pragmatic interpretation, the Apex Court directed that the
appellants, if they had completed 10 years of service on the date
of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, ought to be given the
benefit of the service rendered by them and; that if they had
completed 10 years of service, they should be regularized unless
there was some valid objection to their regularization like
misconduct etc.
11. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be pointed out that in
Uma Devi supra the Constitution Bench had specifically
directed, inter alia, that the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to
regularize as a one time measure the services of the irregularly
appointed persons who had worked for ten years or more and
were eligible for regularization in terms of the specified criterion,
for regularization for which the process must be set in motion
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (23of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
within six months of the date of judgment (10.04.2006). In such
cases, the Constitution Bench did not lay down any further
requirement for adjudging their suitability by any screening
committee, presumably because their continuance in service for
ten years per se showed their suitability.
12. Despite that categorical direction by the Apex Court, it was
only on 08.7.2009 that the Government of Rajasthan took the first
and initial step by notifying the Rajasthan Various Services
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2009 making provisions about
regularization of services. Relevant Rule 2 thereof is reproduced
for ready reference as below:-
"2. Amendment - After the existing last proviso to rule as
mentioned in Column No. 3 against each of the Service Rules as
mentioned in Column No. 2 of the Schedule appended herewith, the
following new proviso at the next serial number shall be added,
namely :-
"the persons, irregularly appointed on duly sanctioned posts and
completed ten years service on 10-04-2006, without intervention of
any court or tribunal, and continuously working as such on the date
of commencement of these amendment rules, shall be screened by a
committee consisting of -
(a) in case of posts falling within the purview of the
Commission :-
(i) Chairman of commission or a member nominated by him;
(ii) Pr. Secretary / Secretary to the Government, Department of
Personnel;
(iii) Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Finance
Department or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy
Secretariat; and
(iv) Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, of the
concerned department:
(b) in case of the posts outside the purview of the
Commission :-
(i) Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Department of
Personnel;
(ii) Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Finance
Department of his nominee not below the rank of Deputy
Secretary;
(iii) Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, of the
concerned department;
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (24of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
provided they were eligible for appointment, as per rules on the
date of their initial irregular appointment and vacancy is
available at the time of screening. The Appointing Authority
shall issue appointment order of the person, who is adjudged
suitable by the screening committee and appointment shall be
effective from the date of issue of such appointment order."
The delay in notifying the Rules, ibid, upto 08.7.2009 was wholly
on the part of the State Government. Yet, the cut off date for
counting the required length of 10 years of service was fixed
therein retrospectively from 10.04.2006.
12.1. There would be a significant number of persons who
completed the ten years' service between 11.04.2006 and
08.07.2009 and who, though irregularly appointed, would have
been otherwise eligible for regularization if the cut off date for
counting ten years' service was postponed from 10.04.2006
corresponding to the delay in notifying the 2009 Rules. For the
default and delay wholly on the part of the respondent State, such
persons would be excluded from consideration for regularization
and made to suffer.
13. Further, for the regularization of persons whose
appointments were irregular but not illegal, and who had
completed ten years of service on the cut-off date and were
eligible as per the criterion, the Constitution Bench of Supreme
Court did not lay down any requirement for adjudging their
suitability by any screening committee. Presumably, because their
suitability was per se evident from their continuance in service for
ten years. In my opinion, insisting upon the further rigor and
requirement for adjudging their suitability by any screening
committee, as per Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Various Services
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2009, would be unwarranted, unfair,
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (25of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
and unjust, besides being an overreach of the directions given by
the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court.
14. Rule 2 of the Rules ibid also provides that the appointing
authority shall issue appointment order of the person, who is
adjudged suitable by the screening committee and the
appointment shall be effective from the date of issue of such
appointment order. There would be a number of persons who had
completed ten years service on various dates and become eligible
for regularization much before the issue of such
appointment/regularization orders. For the period intervening the
date of their acquiring eligibility for regularization and the date of
issue of orders for their regularization, they would be unjustly and
unfairly deprived of the benefits of regularization. In my
considered view, regularization of their services ought to be
given effect from the respective dates of completion of ten years'
service when they had become eligible for regularization.
15. It would be seen that after and in light of the Constitution
Bench judgment in Uma Devi supra, the Apex Court extended the
benefit of regularization of services to the persons who were
originally engaged on part-time, ad-hoc terms (Jaggo supra);
those who were appointed on hourly basis (K.Velajagan supra);
those to whom no formal appointment letters were issued and to
the extent the sanctioned vacancies existed or were required,
directing the employer to take necessary measures for the
purpose (Shripal supra).
16. There is another class of employees i.e. whose services were
interrupted due to litigation. In Bhoop Singh (deceased)
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (26of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
through his LR v. State of Haryana 8 (by the Punjab & Haryana
High Court), the petitioner was appointed in 1988. His services
were terminated in 1993. Under the Labour Court's award, as
upheld by the High Court he was re-instated with continuity of
service and rejoined duty in 2011. His claim for regularization of
services as per Haryana Government's policy was rejected by the
employer on the ground that he was not in service on 31.01.2006,
which was the applicable cut off date for the purpose. It was held
that for all legal purposes, the petitioner had to be considered de
jure in service on cut off date i.e. 31.01.2006,even though on that
date he was not de facto in service and that he was entitled to the
benefit of regularization. Incidentally, the said judgment was also
authored by me as Judge of that High Court. Now also, I hold the
same view.
16.1. When an employee is reinstated with continuity of service by
a court of law, the legal fiction created is that the employee never
left service. For, it would else result in a kind of double jeopardy,
in as much as, despite being vindicated, the employee would
suffer for the fault of his employer. On the other hand, the
employee has already undergone the agony of the lis attributable
to his employer. Therefore, denial of the benefits accruing to
employees who were de jure continuously in service--on a mere
technicality that they were not de facto present on a cut-off date--
is both unjust and contrary to the spirit of Rule of law. To interpret
otherwise would render the very principle of continuity of service
hollow. It would allow the employer to indirectly nullify the effect
of a judicial reinstatement by relying on the intervening absence
2021 SCC Online P&H 4672, CWP-19793-2017 (O & M), decided on 20.04.2021
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (27of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
that was caused by its own unlawful action. The de jure presence
of the employee on the cut-off date must be recognized to ensure
the remedial nature of the court's order is respected and the
employee is restored to the status they would have held had the
illegal termination not occurred. Not adopting this approach also is
fraught with the dangerous consequence--where an employer,
despite being faulted by the court, can still deny the employee the
full range of benefits simply due to the passage of time or delays
in litigation, many of which are outside the control of the
employee. That would amount to punishing the employee twice
over--merely for asserting their legal rights.
16.2. Applying the aforesaid principles by adverting to the bunch
in hand, illustrative reference may be had specifically to SBCWP
No.6604/2016. My attention has been drawn to an order dated
08.05.2024 passed in The State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Tara Chand 9
by Division Bench of this Court vide which the Labour Court award
rendered in favour of the petitioners was upheld. Pursuant
thereto, petitioners were inducted back in service. However, to
contend that the Labour Court award though upheld but the
petitioners would not be entitled to continuity of service despite
specific directions given in the award and subsequently upheld by
this court, would amount to rewriting the award. Particularly,
when in similar situations, Division Bench of this Court had an
occasion to deal with the same argument as noted in order dated
08.05.2024, ibid, which was negated in the following terms:-
"13. The submission of learned State Counsel that since
reinstatement of respondent was through judicial intervention, his
case could not be considered for regularization, as the period could
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.973/2023, decided on 08.05.2024
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (28of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
not be included for the purposes of counting 10 years of service,
cannot be accepted. It is not a case where on the date of
promulgation of the Rules, the respondent was continuing in service
on the strength of any interim order. Present is a case where the
termination order has been declared illegal and the respondent was
reinstated in service. In such a case, the rigour of the observation
that the period of service on judicial intervention shall not be
counted, would have no application.
14. Therefore, the legal position, which emerges in the present case
is that on the date, when the amendments were made in the Rules
and the date on which the case of the respondent was considered for
screening for the purposes of regularization, he shall be deemed to
be in service. Not only that, he shall be deemed to have completed
10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. Consequently, the respondent
was entitled to be regularized in service subject to fulfillment of any
other criteria prescribed for the purposes of regularization."
16.3. Therefore, I see no reason why such like other petitioners,
as above, should also be not treated in service with the benefit of
continuity being accorded to them. Their cases, therefore, have to
be dealt with by treating them in continuous service as per the
applicable regularization policy.
16.3. Likewise in SBCWP No.9929/2017, the petitioner is
somewhat similarly situated in as much as, instead of the Labour
Court, it was by virtue of the Division Bench direction issued by
this Court in the case of The State of Raj. & anr. vs. Hukama Lal &
Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.763/1997 (decided on
11.01.2001), that he was inducted in service. It transpires that
despite the Division Bench having directed forthwith induction of
the petitioner, for no fault of his, same was delayed for as long as
7 months for lack of alacrity shown by the administrative
authority. After being inducted, the petitioner served until age of
superannuation till year 2018 having thus rendered continuous
service from 1978 to 2018 for about 40 years. Pertinently, prior to
the Division Bench order, the petitioner did physically remained
out of service but by virtue of the Labour Court award, which was
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (29of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
upheld right up to Supreme Court, his re-induction was to be
treated with continuity along with consequential benefits.
CONCLUSION:
17. To sum up, the constitutional ethos mandate not merely
procedural fairness but substantive justice. In a welfare State, the
prolonged denial of regularization despite continuous service for
decades borders on institutional exploitation, which ought not to
be countenanced. The delay in implementing the directions of the
Constitution Bench in Uma Devi by over three years (from April
2006 to July 2009) is a gross administrative default. Penalizing
employees for this governmental inaction would amount to
travesty of justice. Let it be reiterated -- a failure to strictly follow
procedure in an otherwise valid and sanctioned appointment does
not render the appointment illegal. Blurring this distinction
undermines the very spirit of Uma Devi and subsequent
jurisprudence. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, well-
recognized in administrative law, is clearly attracted. The
petitioners, by virtue of decades of continuous service and
recurring official assurances or circulars, had a legitimate
expectation of being considered for regularization. A denial thereof
not only defeats fairness but shakes trust in State's conduct. Apart
there from, denial of regularization to persons who are similarly
situated as those already regularized is a blatant infringement of
the equality clause under Article 14, and continued exploitation of
services without security undermines Article 21, which guarantees
dignity of life.
18.1. The State should, in fact, also constitute a Monitoring
Committee to oversee compliance with this judgment. This
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (30of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
exercise is not intended to create a precedent for future
appointments through irregular means. It is a one-time corrective
measure arising from prolonged systemic inertia and continued
service rendered by the petitioners. The repeated misuse of Uma
Devi judgment to justify denial of justice to deserving employees
reflects either a fundamental misunderstanding or a wilful
subversion of judicial dicta. This Court cautions against such
misuse in future and directs legal sensitization of departmental
heads on the correct application of service law jurisprudence.
18.2. At the cost of repetition, it is clarified that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation, read with the mandate of Articles 14 and
21, demands that employees who have rendered decades of loyal,
uninterrupted service--not through backdoor entry but through
sanctioned roles--must not be kept hostage to bureaucratic
apathy. Procedural rigidity cannot override substantive justice,
especially when it threatens to convert long-serving human beings
into expendable tools.
RELIEF:
19. Reverting to the Apex Court judgments referred above and
in the light of foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that in
present case, the following approach is required qua the persons
whose initial appointments were though irregular but not illegal:-
(A). Petitioners (excluding those whose services were hired on
contractual basis for the limited period State Government
Projects/Schemes and External Aided Projects), whose
initial appointments though irregular but were not illegal
(including those who were originally engaged on ad-hoc
and part-time terms and those to whom no formal
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (31of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
appointment letters were issued) and had completed ten
years' service before or on 08.7.2009 but not under
cover of orders of the Courts or Tribunals ought to be
regularized from their respective dates of completion of
ten years' service;
(B). To the extent of requirement of vacancies, the
respondents shall have to take necessary and appropriate
measures. More of it in later part.
20. Persons who had less than 10 years of service as on
08.07.2009 are not eligible under the regularization formula
outlined above. Accordingly, it is both necessary and appropriate
to first examine the claims of those whose initial appointments
were illegal, so that the former cases may be assessed in the
correct legal and administrative framework.
21. In Uma Devi (supra), while dealing with the claims of
persons whose initial appointments were illegal, Supreme Court
had directed that regular recruitments be undertaken to fill those
vacant posts allowing the persons, whose initial appointments
were illegal, to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for
recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been
engaged for a significant period of time.
22. In this context, reference may be had to Rule 20 sub-rules
(1) and (2) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts
Rules, 2022 which reads as under:-
"xx xxx
20. Screening. - (1) if any specific contractual post of the any
scheme/project of the Government is converted into regular post and
included in any service, the person working on that contractual post and
who have completed five years satisfactory service shall be screened for
adjudging their suitability on the post by the screening committee consisting
of,-
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (32of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
(i) Additional Chief Secretary/Principal
Chairman
Secretary/Secretary of the Adminis-
trative Department;
(ii) Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Member
Secretary/Secretary of the Finance
Department or his nominee not
below the rank of Deputy Secretary
to the Government;
(iii) Principal Secretary / Secretary of Member
the Department of Personnel or his
nominee not below the rank of
Deputy Secretary to the Govern-
ment, and
(iv) Head of the Department Member-
Secretary
(2) Experience of the past service of the persons working on the posts so
created on contract basis prior to the commencement of these rules, shall be
given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service.
Example :
S.No. Completed years of contractual service Weightage in years
Note:- (i) The experience of completed of service shall be counted as on
1st April of the year. For the purpose of calculation of the
weightage under this sub-rule, the fractions if any shall be
ignored.
(ii) Experience required for appointment on contractual post shall
not be counted for the purpose of this sub-rule."
23. Guided by the Rule above, I am of the view that the ends of
justice would be met if, while making regular appointments, the
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (33of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
same formula for weightage of experience is applied to non-
contractual persons whose initial appointments were illegal.
24. Addressing now the claims of persons whose initial
appointments were though irregular, but not illegal and who were
short of 10 years service on 08.07.2009, even if marginally, owing
to which they would not be covered by the above formula for
regularization of services. Their appointments being only irregular,
but being short of 10 years service on the cut off date, technically
they would not get any weightage of experience given in terms of
the judgment in Uma Devi supra as given to those whose initial
appointments were wholly illegal. Thus, such irregularly appointed
persons would be worse off than even those whose initial
appointments were wholly illegal. That would be anamolous and
unjust. In my opinion, while making regular appointments, such
irregularly appointed persons who being short of 10 years serving
on cut off date missed out on regularization, should at least get
the benefit of weightage of experience as is proposed to be given
to those whose initial appointments were wholly illegal by
adopting same formula as given in Rule 20, ibid.
25. As an upshot, these petitions are disposed of holding that
the respondents are bound to apply the parameters laid down in
Uma Devi (supra) and identify the petitioners (excluding those
whose services were hired on contractual basis for the limited
period State Government Projects/Schemes and External Aided
Projects), whose initial appointments though irregular but were
not illegal (including those who were originally engaged on ad-hoc
and part-time terms and those to whom no formal appointment
letters were issued) and had completed ten years' service before
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (34of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
or on 08.7.2009 but not under cover of orders of the Courts or
Tribunals and issue orders regularizing their services from
respective dates of completion of ten years' service with
consequential benefits within six months from the receipt of web-
print of this judgment and to pay the monetary benefits thereof
within the next three months;
25.1. Likewise respondents shall also take necessary and
appropriate measures within three months from the receipt of
web-print of this judgment to the extent of requirement of
vacancies for compliance of 25 above;
25.2. With reference to the parameters laid down in Uma Devi
(supra), respondents shall also identify the petitioners (excluding
those whose services were hired on contractual basis for the
limited period State Government Projects/Schemes and External
Aided Projects), whose initial appointments were illegal but are
found ineligible to weightage for experience and waiver of age
restriction and accordingly issue/communicate speaking orders to
the concerned persons within four months from the receipt of
web-print of this judgment;
25.3. It is also deemed appropriate that the respondents ought to
take steps to issue/publish advertisement for regular recruitment
to fill the available vacant posts in relevant categories allowing the
persons whose initial appointments were either irregular or illegal,
to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for recruitment
and giving weightage for their having been engaged for a
significant period of time as per formula in Rule 20 sub -rules (1)
and (2) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts Rules,
2022 (excluding those whose services were hired on contractual
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (35of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
basis for the limited period State Government Projects/Schemes
and External Aided Projects unless otherwise eligible).
FINAL ORDER:
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, binding precedents of
the Supreme Court, and the settled legal principles and also to
undo long-standing administrative injustice by exercising writ
jurisdiction, following specific directions are deemed necessary, to
be implemented in rem:-
I. Regularization of Eligible Petitioners
(i) The State Government, through its Chief Secretary, shall
carry a fresh exercise (regardless of rejection of earlier
claims of regularization) to identify all petitioners and all
such other employees (excluding those whose services
were hired purely on a contractual basis for time-bound
projects/schemes or through placement agencies), whose
initial appointments were irregular but not illegal, and who
had completed ten years of continuous service on or before
08.07.2009, without judicial intervention, and issue orders
regularizing their services with effect from their respective
dates of completing ten years' service.
(ii) Such regularization shall carry with it all consequential
service benefits, including continuity of service for
pensionary and promotional purposes, and shall be
completed within six months from the date of receipt of the
web-print of this judgment.
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (36of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
II. Vacancies and Future Appointments
(iii) To the extent of available or necessary sanctioned
vacancies, the Respondents shall initiate administrative
processes to fill the same through regular recruitment, as
mandated under the constitutional scheme.
(iv) While issuing recruitment notifications, the Respondents
shall allow petitioners and similarly situated persons, whose
initial appointments were either irregular or illegal, to:
Compete in open selection;
Waive the age restrictions;
Award weightage for past service as per Rule 20(2) of the
Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts Rules, 2022.
(v) Such recruitment notifications shall be issued within six
months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
III. Petitioners With Less Than 10 Years of Service
(vi) The Respondents shall identify all petitioners/other similar
employees whose initial appointments were irregular but
not illegal, and who had not completed 10 years of service
as on 08.07.2009. Such persons shall be accorded benefit
of service weightage and age relaxation on parity with
those whose appointments were illegal but eligible under
Uma Devi principles.
IV. Petitioners with Illegal Appointments
(vii) In respect of petitioners/other employees whose initial
appointments were found to be illegal, the State shall:
Allow them to participate in regular recruitment
processes;
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (37of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
Grant age relaxation and experience-based weightage as
per Rule 20(2) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil
Posts Rules, 2022;
Issue individual speaking orders communicating their
status and eligibility within four months.
V. Constitution of Monitoring Committee
(viii)The Chief Secretary shall constitute a Monitoring
Committee within 3 weeks of receipt of this judgment
comprising:
A retired High Court Judge after seeking prior
consent(Chairperson),
Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan to
act as member secretary),
An independent labour law expert (member).
The Committee shall:
Oversee compliance with this judgment;
Submit quarterly status reports to the Registrar Judicial of
this Court to be placed before the learned Roster Judge for
issuance further writ of continuous mandamus if
warranted.
VI. Transparency & Accountability
(ix) The State Government is directed to publish the compliance
report and list of regularized employees on its official
website of department of personnel within 30 days of
issuance of final regularization orders, to ensure
transparency.
VII. Summary of Directions
For better clarity and enforceability, a tabular summary of steps to
be taken is as below:-
Responsible
Direction Action Timeline
Authority
Identify eligible
Regularization from 10-year
petitioners/emplyees in 6 months Chief Secretary
completion date
the state
Issue/publish recruitment Allow age relaxation & Department of
6 months
advertisement weightage Personnel
1 month after
Compliance publication Website notice Administrative Dept
regularization
Constitution of Monitoring
Oversight of execution 3 weeks Chief Secretary
Committee
[2024:RJ-JD:42441] (38of 38) [CW-7603/2023]
27. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the following:
The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan,
The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan,
The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of
Rajasthan,
The Registrar Judicial of this Court for monitoring purposes.
27.1. Ordered accordingly.
28. Aforesaid directions be applied across board qua all those
employees, who are found eligible in terms of the observations
and guidelines laid down in instant judgment. Non-compliance
with aforesaid specific directions within the stipulated time shall
entail personal accountability of the concerned administrative
heads and may invite contempt proceedings under Article 215 of
the Constitution.
29. Before parting, the Court places on record it's deep
appreciation for Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat and Mr. Manvendra
Singh, learned Amicus Curiae assisted by Ms. Saumya
Choudhary and Ms. Ananya Rathore Advocates for devoting their
valuable time and energy, providing valuable inputs and
assistance and enlightening the Court on various aspects of the
case. Appreciation is also due to the learned Advocate General and
his team and the learned counsel for the parties for their able
assistance enabling the Court to reach the decision.
(ARUN MONGA),J
AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
