Jharkhand High Court
Moti Ram (Age About 41 Years) S/O Late … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.176 of 2023
-----
Moti Ram (Age about 41 years) S/o Late Arjun Ram
resident of Bompass Town, Near Kalibadi, P.O. & P.S. -
Deoghar, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. -
Deoghar, District - Deoghar (Jharkhand).
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Chairman, Agriculture
Marketing Committee, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. - Deoghar,
District - Deoghar (Jharkhand).
4. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agriculture
Marketing Committee, Ranchi, P.O. - G.P.O. Ranchi,
P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV
For the Resp. 3 & 4 : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 11.06.2025 Pronounced on 17/06/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated
07.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.(S) No.4535 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the
prayer sought for regularization in the service has been
refused to be granted by dismissing the writ petition.
1
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
Further, the learned Single Judge, before parting
with the order, has observed that the status of the
petitioner will remain as casual part time daily wager, who
will get his wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. The
aforesaid order will not mean that there is any order to
remove the petitioner. If his services are necessary, he will
continue as daily wager.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case which are required to be
enumerated read hereunder as :-
The petitioner/appellant was appointed as “Mali” on
daily wages from June 2001 in the office of respondents
and is continuously working with the satisfaction of the
respondent authorities without inviting any complaint from
any corner.
3. On 25.6.2022, the Committee has taken decision
that the petitioner/appellant had been working as a
contingent labour and was getting Rs. 55/- per day which
was sanctioned by the Committee and also requested the
Secretary to pay him minimum wages.
4. The Secretary, Agriculture Marketing Committee,
Deoghar informed by letter No. 78 dated 06.09.2002 to the
Labour Superintendent, Deoghar that contingent labour’s
minimum wages has been fixed by the Government on per
2
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
day basis and also requested to furnish the minimum
wages so that this office can also make payment as per
minimum wages.
5. It is the case of the petitioner/appellant that in the
premises of Marketing Board, Administrative Building
nearby Garden where 10 mango trees were planted and for
its irrigation and other gardening work, the
petitioner/appellant work has been taken from June 2001
on daily wages @ Rs. 51/- per day as a contingent labour
and as such he got Rs. 1292/ in the month of October
2002.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner/appellant that
it is evident from Memo No. 625 dt. 15.5.2010 issued by
the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Deoghar that the Appellant has been working since June
2001 on daily wages and getting Rs. 99/- per day for 26
working days in a month.
7. Further, one letter was issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, Deoghar vide Letter No. 120 dated
20.3.2015 wherein it was directed to pay Rs.7953/- to the
daily wage employees.
8. In view of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner made
representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-
Chairman, Agriculture Produce Market, Deoghar, on
01.12.2016 and requested that the petitioner is getting only
3
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
Rs.4,346/- per month and he is facing lot of economic
distress, therefore, in view of the direction of Deputy
Commissioner, Deoghar, as issued vide Memo No. 120
dated 20.03.2015, his wages shall also be enhanced to
Rs.7,953/- per month from Rs.4,346/- per month.
9. It is the further case of the petitioner that he
received one letter from the office of the Deputy
Commissioner (Establishment), Deoghar vide Memo No. 57
dated 25.01.2020, wherein it has been stated that the
employees who have been engaged against the sanctioned
post in the State Government and are working continuously
for the last ten years, their services are sought to be
regularized and for that certain documents were directed to
be submitted in the office.
10. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner
made detailed representation before the respondent no.2 on
20.06.2022 annexing the relevant documents for kind
consideration for regularization of his services.
11. When no decision was taken on his representation
for regularization of his services, he filed writ petition before
this Court being W.P.(S) No.4535 of 2022 praying therein
for a direction to regularize him in service.
12. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on
07.02.2023 against which the present appeal has been
preferred.
4
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
13. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ
petitioner was working since June, 2001 as Gardener as
was recorded in the Resolution of the Director, Marketing
Committee dated 25.06.2002. The said fact is also further
apparent from the Memo No.625 dated 15.05.2010 issued
by the Secretary of the concerned Agriculture Produce
Marketing Committee, Deoghar.
14. The petitioner, on the aforesaid ground of long
continuation in service, has sought for a direction for
regularizing him in service. The grievance when has not
been redressed, then the writ petitioner has preferred writ
petition being W.P.(S) No.4535 of 2022 seeking the
aforesaid direction of regularization in service on the
ground of continuous service of more than the period of 10
years, rather, the service rendered by him as on the date is
even more than 24 years and still he is discharging his duty
as Gardener.
15. The respondent committee has appeared and filed
counter affidavit making opposition of such prayer on the
ground that there is no post of Gardener and the petitioner
was working as part time daily wage worker, employed only
26 days in a month.
16. Learned Single Judge after appreciating the rival
submissions made on behalf of the parties and relying
upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
5
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
the case of State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma reported in
(2007) 1 SCC 575, State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal
reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429 as also the judgment
rendered by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v.
Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, has dismissed
the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was
appointed only as a contingent worker and was allowed to
work only for 20 – 26 days in a month.
17. Further reason has been assigned that the
petitioner was never appointed on regular sanctioned post
or any vacancy to the sanctioned post ever existed.
18. The said order is under challenge in the instant
appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
writ petitioner/appellant:
19. Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, has taken the following grounds in
assailing the impugned order/judgment :-
(i) The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact
that the writ petitioner was working since the month
of June, 2001 and still continuing in service which
itself means and suggests that the post on which the
writ petitioner is working is perennial in nature but
even then no efforts have been taken to regularize him
6
2025:JHHC:15906-DBin service but the learned Single Judge has not
appreciated the aforesaid fact, rather, the learned
Single Judge, mainly has gone into the fact about the
post having not been sanctioned.
(ii) It has been submitted that irrespective of the post
having been sanctioned, if the writ petitioner is
working since last more than 24 years, the same itself
is a ground for regularizing the service. Merely on the
ground that the post has not been sanctioned, the
claim of the petitioner for regularizing him in service
cannot be negated.
(iii) It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge
has also not appreciated the proposition laid down in
the recent judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221
and Jaggo v. Union of India and Others reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.
(iv) The learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the
fact that in the case of The State of Jharkhand &
Others v. Md. Ahsanullah Khan [L.P.A. No.529 of
2019] where the post was not stated to be sanctioned
by the State wherein also he was continuing in service
for last 26 years against the post said to be not
sanctioned, but this Court has passed order of
7
2025:JHHC:15906-DBregularization. The aforesaid order has been refused to
be interfered with by the Hon’ble Apex Court by
dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9318 of
2022 which was dismissed on 20.05.2022.
(v) The further ground has been taken by making
reference of the last paragraph of the order impugned
wherein the learned Single Judge has not directed for
regularization of the service of the petitioner, rather,
has directed to keep the status of the writ petitioner to
be of daily rated employee and with a further direction
of not removing him from service which means that
the status of the writ petitioner will always be a daily
rated employee which will be contrary to the principle
laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
(Supra) wherein it has been laid down at paragraph 53
that as a one-time measure the State Governments
and their instrumentalities should take steps to
regularise 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 the
courts, meaning thereby, if the service is not required,
the daily rated employee will be thrown out. But,
herein, by issuance of direction for keeping the status
8
2025:JHHC:15906-DBof the writ petitioner to be a casual worker for ever is
in the teeth of the said proposition of law.
(vi) To buttress his arguments, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant has relied upon the judgments
passed in Jaggo v. Union of India and Others
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal &
Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and The State of
Jharkhand & Others v. Md. Ahsanullah Khan
[L.P.A. No.529 of 2019].
20. Learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner/appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that the order/judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge, therefore, needs interference.
Submission made by learned counsel appearing for the
Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Committee
21. Per contra, Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing
Committee, has taken the following grounds in defending
the impugned judgment: –
(i) The order passed by the learned Single Judge is solely
on the premise that the post was not sanctioned
against which the writ petitioner is working.
(ii) The post since has not been sanctioned, then
irrespective of the period rendered as service, the
9
2025:JHHC:15906-DBpetitioner cannot claim for regularization as his
legitimate right.
(iii) The learned Single Judge has also appreciated that
the petitioner since was appointed for 20 – 26 days in
a month as a contingent worker and, as such, he has
got no right to claim regularization even in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3) (Supra) upon which reliance has been placed by
the learned Single Judge.
(iv) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
relied upon the judgments passed in Union of India
& Others v. Ilmo Devi & Another reported in AIR
2021 SC 4855, State of Rajasthan and Others v.
Daya Lal and Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429
and Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others passed in S.L.P.(C)
No.10519 of 2020 to buttress his arguments.
22. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that the impugned judgment, therefore,
needs no interference.
Analysis
23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone
through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned order as also the fact available in the record
10
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
having been considered by the learned Single Judge while
passing the impugned order.
24. The core question which requires consideration is:-
(i) Whether the conduct of the State i.e., the respondent
Committee herein, will be said to be justified in
continuing with the services of the writ petitioner for a
period more than 24 years as daily rated worker?
(ii) Whether due to the aforesaid conduct of the
respondent Committee, the nature of work which the
writ petitioner is performing, is not considered to be
the work perennial in nature and in that view of the
matter, the writ petitioner has got right to
regularization or not?
25. Both the issues since are interlinked, they are being
taken up together for its consideration. But, before
considering the aforesaid issues, the law which is prevalent
as on the date needs to be referred herein.
26. The reference of the judgment passed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka
v. Umadevi (3) (Supra) needs to be referred herein along
with its background as to why such proposition has been
laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, as would be evident from
paragraph 7 to 10 and paragraphs 33, 34 and 45 are being
referred herein.
11
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
7. These two sets of appeals reflect the cleavage of opinion in
the High Court of Karnataka based on the difference in
approach in two sets of decisions of this Court leading to a
reference of these appeals to the Constitution Bench for
decision. The conflict relates to the right, if any, of employees
appointed by the State or by its instrumentalities on a
temporary basis or on daily wages or casually, to approach the
High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing that
they be made permanent in appropriate posts, the work of
which they were otherwise doing. The claim is essentially
based on the fact that they having continued in employment or
engaged in the work for a significant length of time, they are
entitled to be absorbed in the posts in which they had worked
in the department concerned or the authority concerned.
There are also more ambitious claims that even if they were
not working against a sanctioned post, even if they do not
possess the requisite qualification, even if they were not
appointed in terms of the procedure prescribed for
appointment, and had only recently been engaged, they are
entitled to continue and should be directed to be absorbed.
8. In Civil Appeals Nos. 3595-612 of 1999 the respondents
therein who were temporarily engaged on daily wages in the
Commercial Taxes Department in some of the districts of the
State of Karnataka claim that they worked in the Department
based on such engagement for more than 10 years and hence
they are entitled to be made permanent employees of the
Department, entitled to all the benefits of regular employees.
They were engaged for the first time in the years 1985-86 and
in the teeth of orders not to make such appointments issued
on 3-7-1984. Though the Director of Commercial Taxes
recommended that they be absorbed, the Government did not
accede to that recommendation. These respondents thereupon
approached the Administrative Tribunal in the year 1997 with
their claim. The Administrative Tribunal rejected their claim
finding that they had not made out a right either to get wages
equal to that of others regularly employed or for regularisation.
Thus, the applications filed were dismissed. The respondents
approached the High Court of Karnataka challenging the
decision of the Administrative Tribunal. It is seen that the High
Court without really coming to grips with the question falling
for decision in the light of the findings of the Administrative
Tribunal and the decisions of this Court, proceeded to order
12
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
that they are entitled to 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. It may be noted
that this gave retrospective effect to the judgment of the High
Court by more than 12 years. The High Court also issued a
command to the State to consider their cases for regularisation
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of that
order. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis
that, whether they were appointed before 1-7-1984, a situation
covered by the decision of this Court in Dharwad District PWD
Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of
Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1990)
12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] and the scheme framed
pursuant to the direction thereunder, or subsequently, since
they have worked for a period of 10 years, they were entitled to
equal pay for equal work from the very inception of their
engagement on daily wages and were also entitled to be
considered for regularisation in their posts.
9. Civil Appeals Nos. 1861-2063 of 2001 reflect the other side
of the coin. The appellant association with indefinite number
of members approached the High Court with a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of
the Government directing cancellation of appointments of all
casual workers/daily-rated workers made after 1-7-1984 and
further seeking a direction for the regularisation of all the
daily-wagers engaged by the Government of Karnataka and its
local bodies. A learned Single Judge of the High Court
disposed of the writ petition by granting permission to the
petitioners before him, to approach their employers for
absorption and regularisation of their services and also for
payment of their salaries on a par with the regular workers, by
making appropriate representations within the time fixed
therein and directing the employers to consider the cases of
the claimants for absorption and regularisation in accordance
with the observations made by the Supreme Court in similar
cases. The State of Karnataka filed appeals against the
decision of the learned Single Judge. A Division Bench of the
High Court allowed the appeals. It held that the daily-wage
employees, employed or engaged either in government
departments or other statutory bodies after 1-7-1984, were not
entitled to the benefit of the scheme framed by this Court
13
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
in Dharwad District PWD case [(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC
(L&S) 274 : (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] referred to
earlier. The High Court considered various orders and
directions issued by the Government interdicting such
engagements or employment and the manner of entry of the
various employees. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their
claim, the members of the associations have filed these
10. When these matters came up before a Bench of two
Judges, the learned Judges referred the cases to a Bench of
three Judges. The order of reference is reported in Secy., State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi (1) [(2004) 7 SCC 132 : 2004 SCC
(L&S) 935 : (2003) 9 Scale 187] . This Court noticed that in the
matter of regularisation of ad hoc employees, there were
conflicting decisions by three-Judge Benches of this Court and
by two-Judge Benches and hence the question required to be
considered by a larger Bench. When the matters came up
before a three-Judge Bench, the Bench in turn felt that the
matter required consideration by a Constitution Bench in view
of the conflict and in the light of the arguments raised by the
Additional Solicitor General. —
33. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court
on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular
recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency
can an ad hoc appointment be made in a permanent vacancy,
but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment
and that appointments to non-available posts should not be
taken note of for regularisation. The cases directing
regularisation have mainly proceeded on the basis that having
permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be
absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect,
after discussing the constitutional scheme for public
employment.
34. In A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies [(2004) 7 SCC
112 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 918] a three-Judge Bench made a
survey of the authorities and held that when appointments
were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act
and statutory rules framed thereunder and by ignoring
essential qualifications, the appointments would be illegal and
cannot be regularised by the State. The State could not invoke
its power under Article 162 of the Constitution to regularise
such appointments. This Court also held that regularisation is
not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within
14
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or any body or
authority governed by a statutory Act or the rules framed
thereunder. Regularisation furthermore cannot give
permanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in
nature. It was also held that the fact that some persons had
been working for a long time would not mean that they had
acquired a right for regularisation.
45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual,
be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by
the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time
and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as
if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or
casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment.
He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that
he is not in a position to bargain–not at arm’s length–since
he might have been searching for some employment so as to
eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on
that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the
constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view
that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed
should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so,
it will be creating another mode of public appointment which
is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual
employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were
not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable
the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo
on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given
the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only
mean that some people who at least get employment
temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting
even that employment when securing of such employment
brings at least some succour to them. After all, innumerable
citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and
one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary
employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an
employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on
the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the
nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other
words, even while accepting the employment, the person
concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an
appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim
acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily
15
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to
be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the
procedure established, for making regular appointments to
available posts in the services of the State. The argument that
since one has been working for some time in the post, it will
not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of
the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not
one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure
established by law for public employment and would have to
fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and
equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution.
27. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraph that the
reason for rendering such judgment by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is to put restriction upon the backdoor entry.
However, after giving the consideration about illegal entry
and bifurcating the recruitment/appointment in two
categories i.e., irregular and illegal, parameter has been
fixed at para-53, i.e., if the appointment is irregular, the
same can be regularized depending upon the condition of
more than ten years continuous service without any aid of
the order of the court and the appointment being made
against the sanctioned post. Such employees to be
regularized by the State by taking one time exercise to be
completed within six months from the date of judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case, for
ready reference Para-53 is being referred hereunder as :-
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments)
as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 :
AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC
16
2025:JHHC:15906-DB409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4
SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] 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 the courts
or of tribunals. The question of regularisation 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 abovereferred to and in the light of this
judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should take
steps to regularise 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 the 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 regularisation, if any already made, but not
sub judice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of
the constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the
constitutional scheme.
28. The crux of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka
v. Umadevi (3) (Supra) is that the restriction is to be put on
the backdoor entry vis-à-vis the issue of exploitation and
unfair level practice has also been taken of that is the
reason the State has been directed to do the exercise by
way of one time exercise to regularize the services of such
17
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
employees who are working since last more than 10 years
without any aid of an order passed by the court of law so
that unfair level practice of exploitation by making payment
of only minimum wages be taken care of.
29. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3) (Supra) it has also been laid down as would be
evident from para 53 that the reference of appointment
made against the sanctioned post has also been taken care
of. The appointment, if not made against the sanctioned
post, then such appointment has been considered to be
illegal appointment and the moment such appointment has
been found to be illegal, such appointees are to be
dispensed with from service immediately.
30. The Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of
Jaggo v. Union of India and Others (Supra) while dealing
with the issue of regularization in a case where the issue of
regularization relates to the part time worker who has not
been appointed against the sanctioned post, the Hon’ble
Apex Court, after taking note of the judgment passed in the
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
(Supra), has been pleased to hold at paragraph 20 that the
decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
(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.
18
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
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.
31. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said judgment, has
also referred the judgment rendered in the case of Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India [(2024) 1 SCR 1230], wherein it
was 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.
32. The backdrop of the factual aspect as referred in
paragraphs 4 & 5 along with paragraphs 20 to 28 are being
referred herein:-
“4. The appellants before this Court, being Applicant
Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 before the Tribunal, were originally
engaged by the Central Water Commission2 on part-
19
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No. 1 was appointed as a
Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No. 2 as a Safaiwali in
1998, and Applicant No. 3 as a Safaiwali in 1999. All
three were primarily responsible for cleaning and
maintaining the office premises under the CWC.
Applicant No. 5, appointed in 2004 as a Khallasi (also
discharging duties akin to a Mali/Khallasi), was
entrusted with tasks such as gardening, dusting, and
other ancillary maintenance work. Throughout their
engagement, these individuals performed essential
housekeeping and support functions at CWC
establishments, including its offices at Faridabad,
ensuring daily upkeep and contributing to the smooth
functioning of the Commission’s administrative
operations.
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.
20
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma
Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who
have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing
and necessary functions of the State or its
instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent
backdoor entries and illegal appointments that
circumvent constitutional requirements. However,
where appointments were not illegal but possibly
“irregular,” and where employees had served
continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair
and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,
continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks
inherently required on a regular basis can, over the
time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary
into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a
recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union
of India5, it was held that held that procedural
formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of
service to an employee whose appointment was termed
“temporary” but has performed the same duties as
performed by the regular employee over a considerable
period in the capacity of the regular employee. The
relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced
below:
“6. The application of the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit
squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants were
employed and have continued their service. The
reliance on procedural formalities at the outset
cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their promotion was
based on a specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection
process involving written tests and interviews,
which distinguishes their case from the21
2025:JHHC:15906-DBappointments through back door entry as
discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal”
appointments underscoring the importance of
considering certain appointments even if were not
made strictly in accordance with the prescribed
Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been
made illegally if they had followed the procedures
of regular appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present
case…”
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the
initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the
outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts
must look beyond the surface labels and consider the
realities of employment : continuous, long-term service,
indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or
illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original terms did
not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy
was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to
principles of fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and
job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in precarious
employment arrangements, often characterized by lack
of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and
undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of
fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility
to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When
public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning
22
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
precedent that can erode public trust in governmental
operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has consistently
advocated for employment stability and the fair
treatment of workers. The ILO’s Multinational
Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to
provide stable employment and to observe obligations
concerning employment stability and social security. It
emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading
role in promoting employment security, particularly in
contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate
long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the
case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a
pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating
the consequences of misclassifying employees to
circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft
classified certain workers as independent contractors,
thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these
workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were
entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The
Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or
independent contractors as a means of avoiding
payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their
profits. This judgment underscores the principle that
the nature of the work performed, rather than the label
assigned to the worker, should determine employment
status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It
highlights the judiciary’s role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair
treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
23
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
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, provident24
2025:JHHC:15906-DBfund, health insurance, and paid leave, even
when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families to
undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to
curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular appointments, who
were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in
cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment
in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of
cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective
application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose,
effectively weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization’s functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
25
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
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.”
33. The reference of the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.529 of 2019
[The State of Jharkhand & Others v. Md. Ahsanullah
Khan] also needs to be referred herein wherein also as per
the decision made by the State in the said case, Md.
Ahsanullah Khan was working for the last 26 years but not
against the sanctioned post, rather, his appointment was
said to be seasonal. This Court, after taking into
consideration the long length of service of 26 years, has
passed direction for his regularization in service on the
26
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
consideration of the fact that the identically placed
employees have already been regularized in service.
34. The said judgment passed by this Court has been
challenged by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9318 of
2022 but the same was dismissed. The relevant paragraph
of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.529 of 2019 are being
referred herein :-
“31. We have gone through the judgment rendered by
the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the
consideration has been made with respect to the
appointment of three persons out of which two persons,
namely, Ram Sewak Mahto and Mithilesh Kumar
Tiwary have been appointed on the basis of the order
passed by this Court and one Sri Kamleshwar Rana has
been appointed on the basis of the assurance of the
Legislative Assembly of the State and further
consideration has been made that the land of the writ
petitioner has been acquired sometime in the year 1986
and his case has been considered but he has not been
provided appointment on regular basis rather on
temporary basis to which he is still continuing. Taking
into consideration this aspect of the matter, if the order
has been passed to come out with the advertisement for
appointment of writ petitioner by giving priority in age
and relaxation by granting weightage in marks the same
cannot be said to suffer from any error. It cannot be
said to be excess in jurisdiction by issuing a direction
upon the State-appellant under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to come out with an advertisement
rather according to our considered view, since the Writ
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
the Court of equity and if in exceptional circumstances
a Writ Court considers it just and proper case by
issuing a command upon the State to come out with an27
2025:JHHC:15906-DBadvertisement, the same cannot be said to be excess in
jurisdiction.
32. Herein also, in the given facts as discusses
hereinabove, it is a case of exception in which the land
of the writ petitioner has been acquired way back in the
year 1986 but he has been offered temporary
appointment while other similarly situated persons like
Ram Sewak Mahto and Mithilesh Kumar Tiwary have
been appointed on the basis of the order passed by this
Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court sitting
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and one
Sri Kamleshwar Rana has been appointed on the basis
of the assurance of Legislative Assembly of the State,
this Court cannot be a mute expectator in exercising the
power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
33. If the writ petitioner has been subjected to hostile
discrimination that too without any reason since time
and again this Court has passed judicial orders but no
reason has been explained for differentiating the case of
Ram Sewak Mahto, Sri Kamleshwar Rana and Mithilesh
Kumar Tiwary with the case of the writ petitioner.
34. In view thereof, this Court in the entirety of the facts
and circumstances, is of the view that the order passed
by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity,
accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.”
35. It also needs to refer herein that the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge which is under
challenge in the present appeal wherein the writ petition
has been dismissed by taking into consideration the fact
that the post on which the writ petitioner was working was
not sanctioned one.
36. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case,
it is admitted case that the writ petitioner is working since
28
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
the month of June, 2001 and still discharging his duty as
Gardener, meaning thereby, the petitioner is in continuous
service and still working for the last 24 years. The question
of sanctioned post has been taken into consideration by the
learned Single Judge even though the petitioner is working
for last about 24 years and still working as Gardener which
is perennial in nature and that is the reason the learned
Single Judge while refusing to pass order of regularization
has protected the services of the writ petitioner in the
capacity of daily rated employee.
37. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo v.
Union of India and Others (Supra) and Shripal &
Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Supa) has taken
into consideration that merely on the ground of non-
availability of sanctioned post and if one or the other
employee has been allowed to continue in service fairly for a
long period herein more than two decades, then by taking
plea of appointment having not been made against
sanctioned post will amount to unfair level practice and on
the aforesaid premise the direction has been passed for
regularization.
38. The case in hand is exactly the same. The nature of
work which the writ petitioner is performing is perennial in
nature and that is the reason he is being allowed to
29
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
continue in service even as on today, meaning thereby, his
services are required which is perennial in nature.
39. The learned Single Judge has also accepted the
aforesaid fact that the work performed by the writ petitioner
is perennial in nature and that is the reason status of
casual worker has been protected by observing that passing
of the order impugned will not construe to dispense with
the services of the writ petitioner.
40. If the last part of the order as referred herein, if will
be considered, in absence of the order of regularization, the
same, according to our considered view, will be in the teeth
of the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (Supra) wherein the basic
proposition laid to deal with the unfair level practice by
keeping the employees in the daily rated capacity without
regularization.
41. We, after taking into consideration the judgment
passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo v.
Union of India and Others (Supra) and Shripal &
Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Supra), are of the
view that the order impugned needs interference.
42. Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 07.02.2023
passed in W.P.(S) No.4535 of 2022 is quashed and set
aside.
30
2025:JHHC:15906-DB
43. The instant appeal stands allowed.
44. In consequence thereof, the writ petition stands
allowed.
45. The respondents are, accordingly, directed to
immediately and forthwith regularize the service of the
appellant/writ petitioner.
46. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also
stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Birendra/A.F.R.
31