1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 27459 of 2017 Sudhanshu Chakraborty & Ors. -Vs- The Union of India & Ors. For the Petitioners : Mr. D.N. Roy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Biswarup Nandy, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah, Mr. Sourav Halder, Mr. Gourav Sarkar For the Respondents/UOI : Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 : Mr. Partha Ghosh Mr. Madhu Jana Judgment on : 07.09.2026 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:- 1. The writ petitioners seek consideration of their claim for regularisation of service in the S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘Centre’). The claim arises from their engagement as casual labourers and the subsequent conferment of Temporary Status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 of the Government of India. 2. The petitioners have served the Centre for several years. Temporary Status was conferred upon them at different stages in accordance with the governmental scheme. Their services thereafter continued to be utilized by the Centre in the discharge of its functions. 2 3. The Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme dated 10th September 1993 came into force with effect from 1st September 1993. The Scheme contemplated conferment of Temporary Status upon eligible casual labourers without reference to the creation or availability of regular Group ‘D’ posts. It also prescribed the conditions governing their eventual consideration for regular appointment. 4. Paragraph 4(iv) of the Scheme makes it clear that conferment of Temporary Status does not by itself amount to permanent appointment. A CL-TS employee could enter the permanent establishment upon selection through the regular selection process prescribed for Group ‘D’ posts. Paragraph 8, however, contemplated that two out of every three vacancies in Group ‘D’ cadres in the respective offices where casual labourers worked would be filled, in accordance with the extant recruitment rules and the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training, from amongst casual workers possessing Temporary Status. 5. The Scheme thus occupies a position between casual engagement and regular appointment. Temporary Status does not confer a right to permanent appointment by itself. It does, however, place the employee within a defined governmental regime which contemplates consideration for regular appointment against vacancies subject to the conditions prescribed therein. 6. The later Office Memorandum dated 26th February 2016 reiterates the relevant features of the 1993 Scheme and records the service consequences attached to prolonged service after conferment of Temporary Status. The petitioners' claim consequently falls to be 3 examined not merely by reference to the terms of their original casual engagement but within the governmental framework which governed their subsequent status. 7. The administrative correspondence assumes significance in that context. By Letter No.SNB/FA-2-002/14/15/1153 dated 28th November 2014, the Centre forwarded the particulars of its CL-TS personnel to the Department of Science and Technology under Ministry of Science and Technology in the context of the DoPT Office Memorandum No.49014/3/2014-Estt (C) dated 16th October 2014. By email dated 26th March 2015, the Registrar again forwarded the relevant material and sought advice concerning regularisation. 8. The communication vide Letter No.F.No.AI/10/9/PG/2015 dated 9 March 2016 records that the Government had authorised the respondent institution to decide the claim for regularisation, the matter being within its jurisdiction. The claim thus remained pending before the institution as a matter requiring an administrative decision. 9. The controversy thereafter came before this Court in W.P. 16543(W) of 2016. By order dated 9th March 2017, the Governing Body was directed to take a decision upon the claim within the period prescribed by the Court and, if the claim were declined, to furnish reasons and communicate the same. The order did not itself adjudicate the substantive entitlement of the petitioners. The responsibility of taking the decision rested with the competent authority. 10. The Governing Body considered the matter at its meeting dated 23rd March 2017. The proceedings record that regularisation required availability of posts and that the Centre did not possess sufficient Group 4 ‘C’ posts carrying the requisite grade pay. The Governing Body also considered the applicability of the DoPT instructions and the question of age relaxation. It further sought sanction of suitable Group ‘C’ posts so that the claims of the CL-TS personnel could be considered. 11. The Centre communicated that position to the Department of Science and Technology by letter dated 6th April 2017. The letter specifically sought intervention of the Department for sanction of suitable Group ‘C’ posts for regularisation of the CL-TS personnel. 12. The sequence of these communications is material. The Centre itself treated the petitioners' claim as a matter requiring consideration under the governmental framework relating to CL-TS personnel. The correspondence also shows that the question of availability of posts had been placed before the governmental authority competent to deal with that issue. 13. A Reasoned Order bearing Order No.SNB/20.2/17-18/0026 dated 16th May 2017 was thereafter issued. Subsequently, by communications dated 14th August 2017, the Centre initiated a process for filling existing vacancies through selection amongst the CL-TS personnel. The Selection Committee considered the minimum educational qualification prescribed by the DoPT Office Memorandum No.49014/3/2014-Estt (C) dated 16th October 2014 and the requirement of three years' continuous service after conferment of Temporary Status. Since the Centre did not possess its own Recruitment Rules, reference was also made to the model Recruitment Rules vide Office Memorandum No.AB-14017/6/2009-Estt. (RR) dated 30th April 2010. 5 14. The proposed selection included a written and skill test. The petitioners did not participate in the test. Their advocate, by communication dated 22nd August 2017, recorded the reasons for such decision and questioned the applicability of the recruitment instructions relied upon by the Centre. The petitioners contended that the 2014 instructions could not retrospectively govern their existing claim for regularisation and that the proposed process did not address the claim arising from their Temporary Status and prolonged service. 15. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the writ petition arises from a claim for regularisation of service pursued by persons who have remained in employment of the respondent Centre for a prolonged span of years after being accorded Temporary Status under the schemes of the Central Government. The grant of Temporary Status by the respondent Centre and the petitioners’ continued engagement thereafter constitute matters borne out by the administrative record. Such status carried with it a prescribed scale of remuneration corresponding to the scale applicable to Group-D employees of the Central Government, subsequently placed in the Group-C category, whereas regularisation has not followed despite the long duration of service. 16. The submission proceeds further on the basis that the respondent Centre had, on earlier occasions, regularised casual employees with the approval of the Central Government even after the pronouncement in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. Against such administrative history, the petitioners contend that the claim for regularisation could not have been discarded without examining the circumstances in which persons similarly engaged had obtained regular 6 status and without applying the principles emerging from the later decisions of the Supreme Court. 17. The Learned Counsel submits that the order passed by this Court on 9th March 2017 furnished a clear direction for examination of the claim for regularisation. Instead of addressing the claim within the legal framework governing Casual Labourers with Temporary Status, the respondent authorities proceeded to fill only two posts through a selection exercise, shortlisted candidates and proposed a written/skill test, without according absorption to the petitioners. According to learned counsel, such a course did not answer the substantive claim placed before the authority. 18. The further submission is that the petitioners have continued to discharge duties for the respondent Centre over a prolonged period and that the work entrusted to them bears a continuing and perennial character. The engagement, according to learned counsel, cannot be characterised as one intended for a fleeting requirement or a brief exigency. The continuing utilisation of the petitioners for the functioning of the institution, coupled with the conferment of Temporary Status under the governmental scheme, is relied upon as a circumstance warranting substantive consideration of the claim for regularisation. 19. The Learned Counsel submits that the subsequent attempt to subject the petitioners to a fresh selection process on the basis of the Recruitment Rules/instructions dated 16th October 2014 cannot govern a claim which had arisen much earlier under the Temporary Status Scheme. The submission is particularly directed against retrospective application of the said recruitment framework to the petitioners’ claim for regularisation or 7 permanent absorption. According to learned counsel, a recruitment instruction framed subsequently cannot erase the status already conferred upon the petitioners or displace a claim which had entered the administrative process before such instruction was invoked. 20. The petitioners further contend that, where substantive vacant posts were required for regularisation, the respondent authorities could approach the competent governmental authority for sanction of suitable posts. The written submissions specifically refer to creation of supernumerary posts, where necessary, with the approval of the Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. The argument, therefore, is not confined to existing vacancies but extends to the administrative obligation to place the requirement before the authority competent to consider sanction of appropriate posts. 21. A separate grievance has been raised concerning medical facilities. Learned counsel refers to Office Order No. R1/Admn./Office Order/2024- 25/716, by which only outpatient medical treatment has been extended to the staff, while inpatient treatment has not been made available in the same manner. According to the petitioners, the alteration in the medical facility has deprived the staff and family members of a form of medical protection previously available and has created serious difficulty in circumstances requiring hospitalisation or other substantial medical intervention. The petitioners accordingly seek extension of benefits available to regular employees, including medical facilities, leave salary, Leave Travel Compensation and allied service benefits. 22. The legal submission is supported by reliance upon the following authorities:- 8 i. Biswajit Goswami v. Secretary (Municipal Affairs), 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 393; ii. Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; iii. Ushaben Joshi v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2277; iv. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union, (2024) 19 SCC 345; v. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327; vi. Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 432; and vii. Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238. 23. The Learned Counsel relies upon the aforesaid decisions to contend that prolonged service, the continuing nature of the work, the manner in which the employer has treated the engagement and the existence of a governmental scheme governing Temporary Status require a substantive examination of a claim for regularisation. The submission is that Umadevi cannot be read as a prohibition against every form of regularisation of long-serving employees; rather, the distinction between an illegal appointment and an irregular appointment, together with the circumstances surrounding the engagement and the applicable governmental scheme, must inform the decision. 24. The petitioners therefore contend that the selection exercise proposed by the respondent Centre, particularly the attempt to confine consideration to two posts, cannot by itself dispose of a claim for regularisation which had arisen under the earlier Temporary Status regime. The refusal to participate in the written/skill test, communicated through the advocate’s letter dated 22nd August 2017, is placed in the context of the petitioners’ 9 legal objection to the process and is said not to constitute abandonment of the claim for regularisation. 25. The ultimate submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the administrative record, read with the governing Central Government schemes and the authorities cited before the Court, calls for substantive consideration of the petitioners’ status, length of service, nature of duties, availability or sanction of appropriate posts and entitlement to regularisation, rather than determination of the claim solely through a subsequent selection process devised for existing vacancies. 26. The Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the controversy, as emerging from the writ petition and the petitioners’ notes of argument, centres upon a proposition that the conferment of Temporary Status under the Government’s 1993 Scheme should, by itself, preserve a mode of regularisation de hors the subsequent recruitment framework contained in the Office Memorandum dated 16th October 2014. Such a proposition, according to learned counsel, does not accord with the scheme governing Casual Labourers with Temporary Status. 27. The submission proceeds with reference to paragraph 8 of the 1993 Scheme. The provision contemplated that two out of every three vacancies in Group-D posts would be filled, in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, from amongst casual workers possessing Temporary Status. The Scheme further stipulated that a casual worker would not enter the permanent establishment unless selected through a regular selection process. Temporary Status, therefore, did not itself translate into permanent appointment; the Scheme preserved a selection mechanism as the gateway to entry into the regular establishment. 10 28. Learned counsel further submits that the service structure underwent a subsequent change after implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. The erstwhile Group-D posts came to be placed in Group-C, carrying Pay Band-1 and Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/-. Recruitment to the corresponding Group-C posts thereafter came within the prescribed selection framework, including recruitment through the Staff Selection Commission. Consequently, regularisation of the petitioners could not be effected by the concerned Department merely by reference to the 1993 Scheme, without conforming to the recruitment regime governing the posts as they existed thereafter. 29. According to the Learned Counsel, the proper manner of giving continuing effect to the 1993 Scheme, read with the changes brought about after the Sixth Central Pay Commission, was to regulate a selection procedure through which Casual Labourers possessing Temporary Status could participate for appointment against the posts available for such purpose. The concerned Department accordingly devised a selection process and invited the CL-TS personnel to participate. The petitioners, however, elected not to enter the selection process and instead pursued the present writ proceedings. 30. The submission on behalf of the respondents proceeds further on the circumstance that the petitioners have not mounted any substantive challenge to the Office Memorandum dated 16th October 2014. No declaration has been sought that the said instruction is constitutionally invalid, nor has the selection process initiated pursuant to the prevailing recruitment regime been specifically assailed on such ground. 11 31. The Learned Counsel therefore submits that, so long as the Office Memorandum dated 16th October 2014 and the selection procedure framed pursuant thereto remain operative, the petitioners cannot seek a direction permitting regularisation by bypassing the recruitment process. The legal consequence of Temporary Status, according to the respondents, has to be gathered from the Scheme itself: Temporary Status preserved the petitioners within the category of casual workers entitled to consideration against specified vacancies, while permanent entry into the establishment remained dependent upon selection in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. 32. It is further submitted that the petitioners were afforded an opportunity to participate in the selection process. Instead of availing themselves of that opportunity, they chose to question the process through the present writ petition. The respondents contend that a person who elects not to participate in a selection process cannot thereafter seek appointment through a route which dispenses with the very selection contemplated by the governing scheme and the subsequent recruitment instructions. 33. The Learned Counsel accordingly submits that the petitioners’ case cannot rest upon the mere passage of time or upon the conferment of Temporary Status. The 1993 Scheme itself contemplated selection before entry into the permanent establishment. The subsequent alteration of the post structure after the Sixth Central Pay Commission and the recruitment framework applicable to Group-C posts reinforce the requirement of selection. The petitioners’ claim for direct regularisation, without participation in the prescribed selection procedure, therefore lacks support within the governing administrative framework. 12 34. The respondents accordingly seek dismissal of the writ petition, contending that the petitioners have neither challenged the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 16th October 2014 nor established any legal basis for setting aside the selection procedure framed pursuant to the prevailing recruitment regime. 35. The Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 7 submitted that the petitioners were accorded Temporary Status by the Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences in accordance with the rules governing such engagement and upon acceptance of the terms and conditions prescribed by the Centre from time to time. The record referred to the letters dated 22nd July 1999 addressed to petitioner Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and the letter dated 21 June 2000 addressed to petitioner No.10. Each such communication stipulated the wages payable with reference to the basic pay of the corresponding Group-D post, together with DA and other admissible allowances, the benefits entitled during the period of Temporary Status and the condition that the service could be brought to an end upon one month's written notice. Having accepted the respective terms and conditions the petitioners entered service on that basis. A copy of the relevant letters has been produced as RN-1. 36. The Learned Counsel submits that the present claim for permanent status has to be examined against the character of the engagement which the petitioners themselves accepted. The record further shows that petitioner No. 2 has already retired from service after receiving the applicable retiral payments and pensionary benefits, while petitioner Nos. 4 and 11 have expired, with the benefits arising upon death having been received by the respective dependants. 13 37. It is next submitted that the Centre has never regularised a casual employee in the absence of a sanctioned post. At the relevant point of time, two vacant posts carrying Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/- were available. The Centre initiated a process for filling such vacancies from amongst the twelve personnel holding Temporary Status. Three petitioners were shortlisted from amongst the twelve candidates in accordance with the applicable recruitment parameters and the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training. The shortlisting process proceeded upon the minimum educational qualification of Matriculation or ITI pass, as prescribed by DoPT O.M. No. 49014/3/2014-Estt.(C) dated 16 October 2014. 38. The Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioners were afforded an avenue for consideration against the available vacancies, yet did not participate in the recruitment process. The Centre subsequently advertised vacancies in the Group-C category arising upon superannuation and, according to the respondents, none of the writ petitioners submitted an application against such vacancies. The Centre possesses only 24 sanctioned administrative posts, and recruitment against such posts is carried through open advertisement in accordance with the applicable recruitment regime. 39. The further submission is that the Centre, being an autonomous research institute under the Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, functions in accordance with governmental rules, norms and directions transmitted through the Department of Science and Technology, together with its own Bye-Laws approved by that Department for administrative and academic purposes. 14 The Centre does not possess authority to create posts on its own. Requests have, according to the Learned Counsel, repeatedly been addressed to the Department of Science and Technology seeking creation or sanction of additional posts, but no fresh posts have been sanctioned by the Ministry. Consequently, regularisation cannot be directed in disregard of the sanctioned strength of the establishment. 40. The Learned Counsel places particular reliance upon the order dated 9th March 2017 in W.P. No. 16543(W) of 2016, Sudhanshu Chakraborty & Others v. Union of India & Others, by which the Learned Single Judge directed the Governing Body of the Centre to take a decision upon the petitioners' prayer for regularisation within eight weeks from communication of the order. The order contemplated that, if the Governing Body considered the petitioners entitled to regularisation, necessary consequential orders would follow; if the claim was not accepted, a reasoned order was to be passed and communicated individually within two weeks thereafter. Learned counsel stresses that the Court expressly refrained from entering into the merits of the claim and recorded that the order was not an expression of any opinion regarding entitlement to regularisation. A copy of the order was annexed as RN-2. 41. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Director placed the matter before the Governing Body on 23rd March 2017. The Governing Body thereafter directed that the existing vacancies carrying Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/- be filled through a selection process amongst personnel holding Temporary Status. The Centre accordingly proceeded with shortlisting in accordance with the applicable DoPT instructions and recruitment parameters. The 15 respondents maintain that the selection exercise was therefore not an administrative device devised to defeat the petitioners' claim; it represented the mode adopted for filling sanctioned vacancies in compliance with the governing recruitment framework and the order of 9th March 2017. 42. The Learned Counsel disputes the petitioners' contention that the Centre had introduced a fresh or arbitrary avenue of recruitment under the guise of regularisation. The Centre, according to the submission, followed the recruitment procedure prescribed by the DoPT and acted upon the decision of its Governing Body after the High Court had directed the competent authority to decide the claim. The petitioners were afforded participation in the selection process, but chose not to appear. The respondents accordingly contend that the petitioners cannot assail a selection process which they declined to enter. 43. With regard to the character of the duties performed by the petitioners, learned counsel submits that the work relates principally to cleaning, housekeeping and gardening. According to the Centre, such activities are capable of being outsourced and have, in fact, been outsourced from time to time, having regard to the size of the campus and the expansion of institutional activities. At the same time, the Centre has adopted a sympathetic approach towards the petitioners by assigning them responsibilities in different administrative sections in addition to cleaning, gardening and allied work, so that they remain meaningfully engaged during working hours. 44. On the question of creation of posts, the Learned Counsel maintains that the Centre cannot itself generate sanctioned posts merely because a claim 16 for regularisation has been raised. The Centre has approached the Department of Science and Technology on several occasions for additional posts, but no such posts have been sanctioned. The respondents therefore submit that the Court may not direct absorption against posts which do not exist within the sanctioned establishment. 45. The Learned Counsel also addresses the petitioners' grievance concerning medical facilities. Reference is made to Clause 3(c) of the Contributory Medical Scheme, under which a member of the family of a deceased employee who was in permanent employment and was a member of the Scheme, upon continuation of the prescribed contribution by the family member residing in Kolkata, remains eligible for medical reimbursement. The Centre states that, having regard to the social-security dimension of the matter, medical reimbursement facilities had been extended to the petitioners and their family members during service and that medical reimbursement facilities were also extended to the petitioners after retirement. 46. In this connection, reliance is placed upon the minutes of the Medical Committee meeting dated 25th July 2024 and Office Order No.R1/Admn./Office Order/2024-25/716 dated 16th August 2024, collectively marked RN-3. The Medical Committee considered the possibility of extending OPD treatment reimbursement to staff holding Temporary Status and examined the position concerning medical facilities for dependants of deceased personnel and retired personnel holding Temporary Status. The Committee recorded the existing position under Clause 3(c) of the CMS and recommended that, after retirement, personnel holding Temporary Status could be considered for 17 reimbursement of medical claims, while reimbursement to dependent family members would not extend beyond the permissible scope of the Scheme. For emergency hospital treatment of personnel holding Temporary Status, reimbursement was proposed to be considered on a case-to-case basis, subject to approval of the competent authority and supporting medical records. 47. Finally, the Learned Counsel submits that the decisions of the Supreme Court cited on behalf of the petitioners do not operate upon the present controversy in the same manner. The petitioners, according to the respondents, are already in service under Temporary Status and receive increments, pay revisions corresponding to successive Pay Commission recommendations and other leave-related benefits, including medical reimbursement facilities. The factual and service conditions considered in the authorities cited by the petitioners are, therefore, said to be materially different from the circumstances obtaining in the present proceedings. 48. The submission on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 7, in its essence, is that Temporary Status does not itself confer permanent appointment; regularisation has to operate within the sanctioned establishment and through the recruitment procedure governing the post concerned; the Centre has no independent authority to create posts; the petitioners were afforded consideration against the two sanctioned vacancies but did not participate in the selection; and the order dated 9th March 2017 required a decision by the Governing Body in accordance with law, without expressing any determination upon the petitioners' substantive entitlement to regularisation. 18 49. The petitioners are persons who have served the Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Kolkata, for prolonged periods as casual labourers with Temporary Status. Their grievance concerns the failure of the respondent authorities to carry their cases to their logical administrative conclusion despite the conferment of Temporary Status, the length of service rendered thereafter and the repeated consideration of the issue of their regularisation at the institutional and governmental levels. 50. The petitioners assert that their engagement did not remain confined to any transient or sporadic requirement. They continued to discharge duties entrusted to them by the Centre over several years. Temporary Status was conferred upon them at different points of time and the service relationship thereafter continued for considerable periods. 51. The petitioners rely upon the scheme framed by the Department of Personnel and Training by Office Memorandum dated 10th September 1993 concerning Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation). The scheme contemplated conferment of Temporary Status upon qualifying casual labourers without reference to the creation or existence of regular Group-D posts. Paragraph 8 of the scheme contemplated filling two out of every three vacancies in Group-D cadres, in accordance with the extant recruitment rules and the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training, from casual workers possessing Temporary Status. 52. The scheme also made it clear that conferment of Temporary Status by itself did not place a casual worker on the permanent establishment. Regular appointment was to follow the prescribed selection process. The 19 scheme, therefore, created a structured relationship between Temporary Status, the existence of regular vacancies and the process prescribed for regular appointment. 53. The subsequent evolution of the Central Government establishment altered the nomenclature and recruitment structure of the posts concerned. Following the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the erstwhile Group-D posts were placed in Group-C, Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/-. The minimum educational qualification and the mode of recruitment consequently came to be regulated by the subsequent instructions governing such posts. 54. Office Memorandum dated 16th October 2014 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training assumed significance in this context. The memorandum recorded that the 1993 Scheme was not an ongoing scheme and stated, in express terms, that regularisation of Casual Labourers with Temporary Status could not be undertaken by Ministries or Departments on their own and required relaxation of paragraph 8 of the Appendix to the Office Memorandum dated 10th September 1993. The memorandum further required Ministries and Departments to examine the position of the remaining Casual Labourers with Temporary Status and to place consolidated proposals before the competent governmental authorities. 55. The administrative record demonstrates that the Centre did not treat the matter as closed. A communication dated 28th November 2014 was addressed to the Department of Science and Technology forwarding particulars concerning the Casual Labourers with Temporary Status. An email dated 26th March 2015 also emanated from the Registrar in connection with the question of regularisation. The Centre thereby placed 20 the question before the governmental hierarchy rather than treating the status of the petitioners as a matter confined to the internal administration of the Centre. 56. A communication dated 9th March 2016 further records the position that the Government had entrusted the respondent institution with authority to decide the claim relating to regularisation, the matter being within its jurisdiction. The subsequent proceedings, however, demonstrate that the Centre itself considered the question of sanctioned posts and governmental approval to be material to any final course of action. 57. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P. 16543(W) of 2016. By order dated 9th March 2017, the Court directed the Governing Body of the Centre to take a decision within the stipulated period. The direction contemplated a decision in accordance with law and procedure. A consequential order was to follow if the petitioners were held entitled to relief; in the event of a contrary conclusion, a reasoned order was required to be passed and communicated. 58. The order dated 9th March 2017 did not adjudicate the substantive entitlement of the petitioners to regularisation. No declaration of a vested right to permanent appointment was made. The administrative authority was required to undertake the decision-making exercise in accordance with the governing legal framework. 59. The Governing Body considered the matter at its meeting held on 23rd March 2017. The deliberation assumed significance because the Centre recorded that regularisation depended upon the existence of suitable Group-C posts and that the Centre did not possess a sufficient number of such posts. The Governing Body also considered the question whether the 21 instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training could be implemented against the posts existing at the Centre and whether appropriate age relaxation could be extended. 60. The Centre thereafter addressed the Department of Science and Technology by letter dated 6th April 2017, bearing No. SNB/FA-2-002/17- 18/024. The communication referred to the proceedings in W.P. 16543(W) of 2016, the order dated 9th March 2017 and the deliberations of the Governing Body dated 23rd March 2017. 61. The letter dated 6th April 2017 recorded, inter alia, that the Centre lacked a sufficient number of Group-C posts carrying Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/- for regularisation of all the concerned personnel. The Centre sought advice concerning implementation of the relevant Department of Personnel and Training instructions against the posts existing at the Centre and the question of age relaxation. More importantly, the Centre requested the Department of Science and Technology to sanction suitable Group-C posts so that the incumbents could be considered for regularisation. 62. The communication dated 6th April 2017 thus bears directly upon the controversy. The Centre itself perceived the question of regularisation as requiring consideration at the level of the governmental authority concerned with its establishment. The administrative process contemplated by the Centre had consequently travelled beyond a mere internal determination by the Governing Body. 63. The Reasoned Order dated 16th May 2017 was thereafter passed. The order proceeded upon the premise that the question of regularisation had 22 to be examined in the context of the posts existing at the Centre and the prevailing recruitment instructions. 64. The subsequent letters dated 14th August 2017 show that the Centre proceeded to fill existing vacancies through a selection process amongst personnel possessing Temporary Status. The Selection Committee had been constituted pursuant to the decision of the Director. The Committee met on 9 August 2017 and considered the qualifications of the twelve personnel possessing Temporary Status. 65. The letters dated 14th August 2017 referred to the minimum qualification of Matriculation or ITI prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 16th October 2014. The letters also referred to three years' continuous service after conferment of Temporary Status as one of the criteria. Since the Centre did not have its own Recruitment Rules for the posts concerned, the model Recruitment Rules contained in Office Memorandum dated 30th April 2010 were relied upon. 66. A written and skill test was fixed for 23rd August 2017. The petitioners, through their advocate's communication dated 22nd August 2017, declined to participate in the proposed test. The communication specifically questioned the legal basis of applying the recruitment regime contained in the Office Memorandum dated 16th October 2014 to persons whose claims for regularisation had arisen from their earlier conferment of Temporary Status and prolonged service. 67. The petitioners also contended in the communication dated 22nd August 2017 that the Reasoned Order dated 16th May 2017 had not addressed the continuity of their service in the manner contemplated by the earlier proceedings. They further asserted that the recruitment instructions of 23 16th October 2014 could not retrospectively determine their claim for regularisation or permanent absorption. 68. It is imperative to replicate the following Orders/Notifications/Circulars/Correspondences to assess the instant disputations. 69. The Office Memorandum dated 16th October, 2014 issued by the Director (Estt.), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India is replicated as follows:- “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Regularization of Casual Labour with Temporary Status(CL- TS)-Proposals from Ministries/Departments on -regarding. The undersigned is directed to say that Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularisation). Scheme of Government of India, 1993, circulated vide DOPT OM No. 51016/2/90-Estt(C) dated 10.09.1993, stipulated conditions for grant of temporary status and regularization of services to the persons recruited on daily wage basis in the Central Government Offices as on 10.09.1993. It was held in the Mohan Pal Case SLP (Civil) No. 2224/2000 that the Scheme of 1-9-93 is not an ongoing Scheme and the temporary status can be conferred on the casual labourers under that Scheme only if they were in employment on the date of the commencement of the scheme and they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year i.e. at least 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of offices having 5 days a week). The Scheme inter-alia provided for regularization of CL-TS against Group 'D' posts. 2. Following the acceptance of the recommendation of the 6th CPC, all Group D posts have been upgraded to Group C posts. Recruitment to erstwhile Group 'D' posts placed in Group 'C'. PB-1, Grade Pay 1800/- (non technical as MT Staff) is now made only through Staff Selection Commission and minimum educational qualification for appointment is Matriculation or ITI pass. 24 Regularisation of CL-TS therefore cannot be done by the Ministries/ Departments on their own and requires relaxation of para-8 of the Appendix to the O.M. dated 10.09.1993. 3. This Department vide O.M No. 49011/31/2008-Estt(C) dated 17th February, 2009 had requested all Ministries/ Department to provide information relating to CL-TS on their rolls. Information relating to 231 CL-TS was received from 29 Ministries/Departments which were processed. Since then this Department has been receiving proposals piece-meal from different Departments. 4. Department of Expenditure have now advised this Department that in order to avoid piece-meal examination of such proposals, a consolidated proposal for regularization of all such remaining CL-TS who were on the rolls of the Ministries/Departments on 10.09.1993 and yet could not be regularized may be forwarded to them for further consideration/examination. Therefore, all Ministries/Departments are requested to review the position at their establishments and send a consolidated proposals for regularization of services of such remaining CL-TS on their rolls (including attached/subordinate and autonomous bodies), if any, latest by 30.11.2014 to this Department in the enclosed format. It may be ensured that complete information in respect of the Ministry/Department and its Attached/Subordinate Offices is sent. The information may also be sent by e-mail(in MS Word) at dse@nic.in. ……….” 70. The Office Memorandum dated February 26th, 2016 issued by the Director (E), Ministry of Personnel, Public Girevances and PG, Department of Personnel and Training, Establishment Division stated as follows:- “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Casual Labourers with temporary status-clarification regarding contribution to GPF and Pension under the old pension scheme Undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's OM No. 51016/2/90-Estt (C) dated the 10th September, 1993 vide which a scheme for grant of temporary status to the casual employees was 25 framed. The scheme applied to those casual labourers who were in employment on the date of the issue of the OM and had rendered one year of continued service in Central Government offices, which meant that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week). The scheme did not apply to Departments of Telecom & Posts and Ministry of Railways. 2. As per the scheme, after rendering three years' continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers were to be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund. Further, after their regularisation, 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits. 3. As per para 8 of the scheme, two out of every three vacancies in Group 'D' cadres in respective offices where the casual labourers have been working would be filled up as per extant recruitment rules and in accordance with the instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training from amongst casual workers with temporary status.) However, regular Group 'D' staff rendered surplus for any reason will have prior claim for absorption against existing/future vacancies. In case of illiterate casual labourers or those who fail to fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed for post, regularisation will be considered only against those posts in respect of which literacy or lack of minimum qualification will not be a requisite qualification. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they have worked continuously as casual labourer. 4. Vide the O.M. No.49014/1/2004 -Estt (C) dated the 26th April, 2004, the above scheme was reviewed in the light of introduction of New Pension Scheme in respect of persons appointed to the Central Government service on or after 1.1.2004 as under: (i) As the new pension scheme is based on defined contributions, the length of qualifying service for the purpose of retirement benefits has lost its relevance, no credit of casual service, as specified in para 5 (v), shall be available to the casual labourers 26 on their regularisation against Group 'D' posts on or after 1.1.2004 (ii) As there is no provision of General Provident Fund in the new pension scheme, it will not serve any useful purpose to continue deductions towards GPF from the existing casual employees, in terms of para 5 (vi) of the scheme for grant of temporary status. It is, therefore, requested that no further deduction towards General Provident Fund shall be effected from the casual labourers w. e. f. 1.1.2004 onwards and the amount lying in their General Provident Fund accounts, including deductions made after 1.1.2004, shall be paid to them. 2. The existing guidelines contained in this Department's OM No. 49014/2/86-Estt.( C) dated 7.6.88 may continue to be followed in the matter of engagement of casual workers in the Central Government Offices. 5. The OM dated 26th April, 2004 has been quashed by various benches of CAT/High Courts who have decided that the scheme could not be modified retrospectively. The SLPs filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been dismissed by the Apex Court in UOI & Ors v Rameshwar Singh, CC 1829/2014, UOI & Ors v Ramsaran & Ors, SLP (C) No. 25360-25362 of 2008, SLP 17358/2008, SLP 25360-62/09, Union of India etc v Ajay Kumar & Ors, SLP No.19673-19678/2009. 6. The position has been reviewed in the light of the Court judgements in consultation with the Department of Expenditure. It has now been decided that the casual labourers who had been granted temporary status under the scheme, and have completed 3 years of continuous service after that, are entitled to contribute to the General Provident Fund. 7. 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits in respect of those casual labourers who have been regularised in terms of para 8 of the OM dated 10.09. 1993. 8. It is emphasised that the benefit of temporary status is available only to those casual labourers who were in employment on 27 the date of the issue of the OM dated 10th September, 1993 and were otherwise eligible for it. No grant of temporary status is permissible after that date. The employees erroneously granted temporary status between 10.09.1993 and the date of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in Union Of India And Anr vs Mohan Pal, 2002 (3) SCR 613, delivered on 29 April, 2002, will however be deemed to have been covered under the scheme of 10.09.93. 9. Ministries/Departments are also requested to identify cases where temporary status has been granted wrongly to those not covered under the OM dated 10.09.1993 and fix responsibility for the same. ……….” 71. The Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2016 of the Director (E), Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, stated as follows:- “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Casual labourers with temporary status clarification regarding contribution of GPF and Pension under the Old Pension Scheme. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's OM of even number dated 26th February, 2016 on the above subject and to say that some references have been received in this Department from various Ministries/Departments seeking a clarification with regard to the Para 7 of the referred OM. 2. The OM was issued in consultation with Department of Expenditure and the Department of Pension and PW. It was clarified vide that OM that this Department's O.M dated 26th April, 2004 had been quashed in a series of Orders/Judgements. The OM dated 26th February, 2016 restores the provisions of the Scheme as it existed prior to the OM dated 26th April, 2004. The benefit of GPF and Old Pension Scheme is applicable to all those casual labourers who are covered under the Scheme of the 10th September, 1993 even if they have been regularized on or after 01/01/2004. 28 3. As the benefit of Old Pension Scheme and GPF is admissible only to those Casual workers who are covered under the Scheme of 1993, all Ministries/ Department may strictly ensure that it does not lead to demand by regularly recruited fresh employees appointed on or after 1.1.2004for similar benefit in place of NPS. 4. This issues with the concurrence of Department of Expenditure vide their 1.D.No.1(15)/E-V/2015 dated 27.07.2016 ……….” 72. The Communication No.SNB/FA-2-002/15-16/1035 dated 16th November, of the Registrar, addressing to Dr. M. Prithviraj, Ninistry of Science & Technology, Department of Science & Technology, replicated as follows:- “Sub: Regularization of casual labour with Temporary Status (CL-TS) Dear Sir, This is in reference to your letter no. SG/AI/Misc/B1/2015 dated 27.10.15 regarding the above subject matter. Please note that the Centre has 12 persons on payroll in the Temporary Status, the details of whom were provided to DST vide letter no. SNB/FA-2-002/14-15/1153 dated 28 November 2015 (copy enclosed). Shri. Nimai Naskar's details is mentioned in S1 No. 12 of the above referenced letter. A reminder to this letter was also given vide e- mail dated 26 March 2015 (copy enclosed). The Centre will be happy to provide you any specific information that you may require in this respect Thanking you, ……….” 73. The Communication No.SNB/FA-2-002/17-18/024 dated 06th April, 2017 of the Registrar, addressing to Dr. Praveer Asthana, Scientist-G, Head (AI and Mega Sc. Div.), Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Science & Technology, is stated as follows:- “Sub: Regularisation of Casual Labour with Temporary Status (CL-TS) of SNBNCBS, Kolkata, 29 Re: W.P.16543 (W) of 2016 in the matter of Mr. Sudhanshu Chakraborty & Others vs Union of India & Others. Dear Sir, As you may kindly recall the matter of regularisation of CL-TS employees of the Centre was reported in the 53rd Governing Body meeting held on 23 March 2017 under "Any Other Item' with respect to an order passed by Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, Hon'ble Judge High Court dated 09.03.2017 which was placed in the meeting. You were also present in the meeting as a nominee of Secretary, DST. During the course of discussion in the meeting, the Governing Body made the following observations: (i) Any regularisation would require post availability. At present the Centre does not have sufficient positions in the Group 'C' grade pays. If such positions are available, in the advise is sought as to whether the guidelines of DOPT (marked as Appendix) be implemented for regularisation of CL-TS employees against these positions. Also, advice as to whether age relaxation can be permitted in the age-limit for regularisation of such incumbents. (ii) Till the time, all the other positions become available with the Centre, they have to wait. (iii) The Centre also requests DST to sanction suitable positions in the Group 'C' grade pays so that all the incumbents can be regularised against them. (iv) Also, it may kindly be noted that the steps taken by the Centre in this regard are also to be appropriately informed to the Hon'ble High Court, as directed in the order dated 09.03.2017 and also to the incumbents within 8 to 10 weeks from the date of communication of the order, The Centre thus seeks the intervention of DST for providing suitable positions in the Group 'C' grade so that the CL-TS employees, who have long being associated with the Centre, are regularised. A copy of the judgement (Annexure A) dated 09.03.2017 and a detailed description of the 12 employees who are in TS status (Annexure IB) is 30 enclosed herewith for kind perusal Other relevant documents regarding communication with DST regarding TS employees are enclosed (Annexure C) for your kind perusal. ……….” 74. The principal question arising for determination is not whether a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can itself create Group-C posts or direct the conversion of the existing cadre. Such a course would travel beyond the judicial function. The question is whether the respondents completed the administrative exercise required for consideration of the petitioners' claim after the Centre itself identified the requirement of suitable posts and formally sought governmental intervention for that purpose. 75. The distinction is material. Creation, sanction, abolition or restructuring of posts ordinarily belongs to the executive establishment and financial authorities entrusted with such matters. Judicial review, however, extends to the legality of the decision-making process, the consideration of relevant statutory and administrative norms and the performance of a duty which the authority has undertaken to discharge. 76. The principle governing regularisation cannot be stated without reference to Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1. The Supreme Court drew a distinction between appointments which were illegal and appointments which were irregular, while recognising a one- time measure for duly qualified persons who had rendered ten years or more of service in duly sanctioned vacant posts, subject to the conditions stipulated by the Constitution Bench. 77. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1, also requires due regard. The Supreme Court reiterated the limits of judicial intervention in matters 31 concerning creation of posts, recruitment, cadre structure and regularisation. The judgment cautions against judicial directions compelling the executive to create supernumerary posts for the purpose of absorbing temporary or daily-rated employees. 78. The present adjudication does not require departure from either of the aforesaid principles. No direction is warranted for creation of a post by judicial fiat. No supernumerary post is being created by this order. No appointment is being made by the Court. The executive authorities remain responsible for determining the number, nature and sanction of posts in accordance with the governing governmental procedure. 79. The later decisions of the Supreme Court, however, demonstrate that Umadevi (supra) cannot be read as a rule by which prolonged service in an enduring institutional requirement becomes legally irrelevant in every circumstance. 80. In Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 13 SCC 432, paragraph 9, the Supreme Court applied the principle of one-time regularisation to employees who had rendered prolonged service and whose cases fell within the parameters identified in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. 81. In the case of Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observation: “9. The High Court dismissed the writ application relying on the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . But the appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they had rendered service for three years, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it was not the case of back door entry; and there 1(2018) 13 SCC 432 32 were no Rules in place for offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time, when their temporary status was conferred w.e.f. 2-10-2002. The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a one-time measure, as laid down in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect from 2-10-2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be regularised from the said date i.e. 2-10-2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today.” 82. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238, the Supreme Court cautioned against an interpretation of Umadevi which would permit prolonged temporary engagement to become a means of perpetual denial of regular status where the circumstances otherwise attracted the governing regularisation framework. 83. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observation: “6. The concept of a one-time measure was further explained in Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Report which read as follows: (SCC pp. 250-51, paras 9-11) “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are 2(2018) 8 SCC 238 33 working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services. 10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , are so considered. 34 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] as a one-time measure.” 7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 35 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid. 8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench. 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. 36 11. The impugned judgment and order [Anil Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2904] passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. 12. We may add that that it would be worthwhile for the State of Jharkhand to henceforth consider making regular appointments only and dropping the idea of making irregular appointments so as to short circuit the process of regular appointments.” 84. In Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, the Supreme Court examined prolonged service and the manner in which initial procedural circumstances should be assessed against the subsequent course of employment. The judgment recognised that the substance of the employment relationship cannot always be reduced to the terminology used at its inception. 85. In the case of Vinod Kumar v. Union of India3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observation: “7. The judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] 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. Para 53 of Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is reproduced hereunder : (SCC p. 42) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained 3 (2024) 9 SCC 327 37 in S.V. Narayanappa [State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 23] , R.N. Nanjundappa [R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] 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.” (emphasis in original) 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognise the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations. 38 9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment [Vinod Kumar v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2016 SCC OnLine All 4489] of the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be considered for regularisation in their respective posts. The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularisation within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.” 86. In Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 270, the Supreme Court considered prolonged engagement in work of a regular and perennial character and declined to sustain a distinction which lacked a rational basis in the actual nature of the work and service rendered. 87. In the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observation: “27. A tabulated representation of the above description is as follows: Site of work No. of workers who executed works No. of workers who were regularised No. of workers not regularised Bunker 19 16 3 Coal handling plant 6 3 3 Railway siding 7 — 7 Total 32 19 13 28. The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the denial of regularisation of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated 4(2024) 19 SCC 345 39 previously, we do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However, as the case was argued at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the appeals. What we have referred to hereinabove are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court. In view of the concurrent findings of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of work, continuous working of the workmen, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant. 29. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularisation, for no fault of the workmen and therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages. 30. With respect to payment of back wages, we are of the opinion that the workmen will be entitled to back wages as observed by the Industrial Tribunal. However, taking into account, the long-drawn litigation affecting the workmen as well as the appellant in equal measure and taking into account the public interest, we confine the back wages to be calculated from the decision of the Tribunal dated 23-5-2002. This is the only modification in the order of the Tribunal, and as was affirmed by the judgment of the High Court. 31. For the reasons stated above, the appeals arising out of the final judgment and order [Mahanadi Coalfields v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union, WP (C) No. 2002 of 2002, order dated 11-1-2017 (Ori)] of the High Court in WP (C) No. 2002 of 2002 and order [Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2488] in Review Petition No. 77 of 2017 are dismissed with the direction that the workmen concerned shall be entitled to back wages with effect from 23-5-2002. There shall be no order as to costs.” 88. Ushaben Joshi v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2277, also illustrates the significance of the actual duties performed and the treatment accorded to similarly situated personnel. Nomenclature by itself cannot supply a sufficient basis for differentiation where the factual and service circumstances point in the same direction. 40 89. In the case of Ushaben Joshi v. Union of India5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observation:- “16. Evidently, the decision to regularise the services of Smt. K.M. Vaghela and in appointing her as an MTS was an independent decision of respondent-Department uninfluenced by the CAT's order. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that she has been discriminated vis-à-vis Smt. K.M. Vaghela who has been given the benefit of regularization is substantiated and established from record. 17. The respondents have not indicated anything in the affidavit filed in pursuance of the order dated 27th February, 2024, that the nature of duties or the hours of work being performed by Smt. K.M. Vaghela were any different from that of the appellant. Thus, the defence taken by the respondents for their decision not to confirm the appellant in services that she was only performing duties as a contingency worker(water woman) for four hours a day is not substantiated from any acceptable material on record. Indisputably, the appellant continuously served the Department for more than three decades as a contingency ‘water woman’. Keeping in view the fact that an employee similarly placed but inducted in service after nearly six years from the date of employment of the appellant with the respondent-Department has been conferred the benefits of confirmation in service by way of appointment to the post of MTS, the appellant is entitled to claim the same benefits. 18. The prevailing circulars applicable to the Posts and Telegraphs Department mandate that a temporary employee who has worked in the Department continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months would be entitled to claim the relief of regularisation under the extant rules and regulations. 52024 SCC OnLine SC 2277 41 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the appellant at par with Smt. K.M. Vaghela and shall pass the order of regularisation/appointment as MTS in favour of the appellant, on similar terms as was done in the case of Smt. K.M. Vaghela. The order of regularisation will be effective from the date on which, Smt. K.M. Vaghela was appointed as MTS with all consequential benefits. Compliance of this order shall be effected within a period of three months from the date of this order. 20. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.” 90. In Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, the Supreme Court examined the position of long-serving workers engaged in continuing functions. The judgment explained that the constitutional prohibition against back-door appointments does not furnish a reason for disregarding every claim arising from prolonged service in posts or functions which form a continuing component of governmental activity. The distinction between an illegal appointment and an irregular appointment remains decisive. 91. In the case of Jaggo v. Union of India6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observation: “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 62024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 42 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 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 43 services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.” 92. The recent decision in R. Iyyappan v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 431, illustrates a different circumstance. The Supreme Court directed regularisation after taking account of an earlier binding judicial order which had specifically required formulation of a scheme and creation of the requisite posts for permanent engagement. The force of that decision lay substantially in the prior adjudication which had attained finality. 93. The order dated 9th March 2017 in W.P. 16543(W) of 2016 did not declare the petitioners entitled to regularisation and did not direct creation of posts. The decision in R. Iyyappan therefore cannot be transplanted to the present matter as though the earlier order in the present proceedings contained an equivalent mandate. 94. The decision in Biswajit Goswami v. Secretary, Municipal Affairs, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 393, also requires factual application rather than mechanical extension. The Court there considered the position of similarly placed daily-rated employees against the background of earlier absorption of other employees and the circumstances concerning sanctioned and supernumerary posts. The decision reinforces the importance of examining the administrative history of the particular establishment rather than treating the duration of service as a solitary determinant. 95. The respondents contend the petitioners were invited to participate in the selection process against two existing Group-C posts carrying Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/- and declined to participate. Reliance is also placed upon the petitioners' failure to challenge the Office Memorandum dated 16 October 44 2014 and upon the contention that the Centre cannot regularise employees in the absence of sanctioned posts. 96. The submissions are persuasive to the extent they recognise the statutory and administrative limits upon the Centre. A person possessing Temporary Status does not thereby acquire an automatic right to permanent appointment. The existence of sanctioned posts, the prescribed qualifications, the applicable recruitment rules and the governmental approvals required by the relevant scheme are indispensible. 97. The respondents' case, however, does not conform to the significance of the Centre's own communication dated 6th April 2017. The Centre did not merely state that no posts existed and terminated the issue. It sought intervention from the Department of Science and Technology for sanction of suitable Group-C posts so that the concerned personnel could be considered for regularisation. 98. The administrative record therefore reveals two distinct aspects. One concerns selection against existing sanctioned vacancies. The other relates the broader claim of the CL-TS personnel and the request addressed by the Centre to the governmental authority for suitable posts and requisite administrative guidance. 99. Selection against two existing vacancies could validly address only the first aspect. Such selection cannot, by itself, be treated as a final adjudication of the second aspect, particularly when the petitioners had already raised a written objection before the date fixed for the test and when the Centre itself had sought governmental intervention regarding the larger question. 45 100. The petitioners' refusal to participate in the proposed test cannot be treated as an automatic forfeiture of every claim arising from their earlier Temporary Status and prolonged service. The legal consequence of the refusal must be considered in the context in which the denial occasioned. The communication dated 22nd August 2017 records a specific legal objection to the process and was issued before the scheduled test. 101. A different consequence would follow if a petitioner had secured appointment through the selection process or had voluntarily accepted a new appointment carrying conditions inconsistent with the earlier claim. The present record, as placed before the Court, does not disclose such a circumstance. 102. The office memorandum dated 16th October 2014 itself stated regularisation of CL-TS personnel cannot be undertaken by the concerned Ministry or Department on its own and requires relaxation of paragraph 8 of the Appendix to the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 Scheme. The Centre, consequently, could not have lawfully resolved every aspect of the petitioners' claim by an internal order if the governmental relaxation or sanction contemplated by the memorandum remained necessary. It also specified forwarding of a consolidated proposal for regularisation of all such remaining CL-TS who were on the rolls of the Ministries/Departments on 10.09.1993 and yet could not be regularized for further consideration and examinations. 103. The administrative process required by the memorandum therefore assumes significance. The Centre had already taken the first substantive step by communicating with the Department of Science and Technology on 6th April 2017. The record placed before the Court does not 46 demonstrate a final governmental determination upon the request contained in the said communication. 104. The absence of such determination cannot be converted into a final rejection of the petitioners' claim merely by treating the subsequent selection exercise as its complete substitute. Such a course would not attain finality of the administrative issue which the Centre itself had raised before the Department of Science and Technology. 105. The Court does not determine whether the Department of Science and Technology must sanction the posts sought by the Centre. Nor does the Court prescribe the number or category of posts. The Court does not direct relaxation of the recruitment rules or the 1993 Scheme. Such decisions belong to the competent executive authorities. 106. The Court can, however, require the administrative process already initiated by the Centre to reach a reasoned conclusion. A governmental authority which has been approached by its subordinate or autonomous institution for a decision bearing directly upon the latter's statutory and administrative capacity to deal with a class of employees cannot leave the request without a final administrative determination and thereafter treat the absence of such determination as a complete answer to the employees' claim. 107. The communication dated 6th April 2017 shall therefore be treated as a material part of the administrative record. The Centre shall place and pursue the request contained therein before the Department of Science and Technology. The Department of Science and Technology shall examine the request in accordance with the governmental procedure 47 governing sanction of posts, relaxation of the applicable recruitment framework and regularisation of CL-TS personnel. 108. Any concurrence, approval or examination by another competent governmental authority, including the Department of Personnel and Training or the Department of Expenditure, where required by the applicable rules or instructions, shall be obtained through the prescribed authority. No direction contained in this order shall be construed as a command to any such authority to sanction a post, grant relaxation or approve regularisation. 109. Upon completion of the aforesaid governmental process, the Centre shall reconsider the claim of each petitioner separately. The exercise shall take into account the date of initial engagement, the date and source of conferment of Temporary Status, the length and continuity of service, the duties performed, the qualifications possessed, the nature of the post against which consideration is sought, the applicable recruitment rules, the 1993 Scheme to the extent applicable to the individual petitioner, the Office Memorandum dated 16th October 2014 and every subsequent governmental instruction governing the matter. 110. The authority shall also take into account the distinction between an existing sanctioned vacancy and a post requiring fresh governmental sanction. The first category may be dealt with within the Centre's lawful recruitment framework. The second category requires action through the competent governmental establishment and financial authorities. 111. The individual claims shall not be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners did not participate in the written or skill test held pursuant to the process initiated in August 2017. 48 112. The Reasoned Order dated 16th May 2017 cannot survive in its present form to the extent it brought the petitioners' broader claim to an end without completion of the governmental process which the Centre itself had initiated by its communication dated 6th April 2017. The said Reasoned Order is accordingly set aside to that limited extent. 113. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as a declaration that every petitioner possesses an immediate or vested right to regular appointment. The adjudication proceeds on the narrower but legally material conclusion that the petitioners' claims require a complete administrative determination after consideration of the governmental process expressly invoked by the Centre itself. 114. The respondents shall complete the part of the process falling within their respective jurisdiction expeditiously. The Centre shall place and pursue the matter before the Department of Science and Technology within four weeks from communication of this order seeking necessary sanction of post for regularisation including appropriate financial approval. The Department of Science and Technology shall take the request for consideration in accordance with the applicable governmental procedure and communicate its decision to the Centre. 115. Following such decision, the Centre shall undertake the individual exercise contemplated above and pass a reasoned order in respect of each surviving claim within three months thereafter. 116. The exercise shall not result in creation of any post by judicial direction. No supernumerary post is directed to be created by this Court. No cadre is directed to be altered. No recruitment rule is waived by this order. The 49 competence of the executive authorities concerning establishment, finance, recruitment and sanction of posts remains intact. 117. The ancillary grievance concerning medical facilities shall be examined separately in accordance with the applicable Medical Scheme, the Office Order dated 16th August 2024 and the status of each concerned person. The fact that certain petitioners have retired or that the dependants of deceased petitioners receive benefits shall be taken into account while determining the nature of any consequential claim. The Court expresses no concluded determination on the extent of medical reimbursement or post-retiral medical entitlement in the absence of a complete adjudicatory record on that distinct issue. 118. The directions contained herein preserve the distinction between judicial review and executive administration. The Court requires completion of a process which the respondents themselves initiated; it does not assume the statutory function of sanctioning posts or relaxing governmental rules. 119. The writ petition consequently succeeds to the extent indicated above. 120. There shall be no order as to costs. 121. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)