1 2025:CGHC:12203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1707 of 2025 1 - Sahodra Soni D/o Late Motilal Soni, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ward No. 6 Baiga Para Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Works Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to produce the entire records of the case particularly the records of the petitioner for consideration of regularization of their services, for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.04.08 15:50:46 +0530 2 ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 10/10/2024 and allow the present writ petition directing the respondent authorities to consider her case for regularization, in the interest of justice. iii) Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. This petition, may be allowed with cost.” 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 10/10/2024 passed by the respondent No.2 wherein the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been denied even though she is working since 2010 continuously for more than 10 years, under the respondent department. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as clerk on daily wage by the respondent w.e.f. 22/08/1992. Thereafter in the year 2000, the service of the petitioner was discontinued on account of the circular of the state government to which the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour court, Durg. The reference was whether the termination of the petitioner was proper and legal or not. The learned Labour court vide order dated 07/03/2006 held that the discontinuation/retrenchment of the service of the petitioner was in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and therefore was not illegal. Thereafter, the State Government has again reengaged the petitioner w.e.f. 16/05/2006 and since then the petitioner is in employment continuously. The petitioner had preferred writ petition before this Court for direction to the respondent department to regularize her service as per circular dated 05/03/2008 as she had been worked from 1992 to 2000 and thereafter on being reengaged in the year 2006. The said writ petition WPS No.151/2015 vide order dated 20/01/2015 was disposed of leaving open liberty to the petitioner to raise industrial dispute before the Labour Court on the point that whether there was any break in service or not and whether the case of the petitioner 3 falls within the ambit of circular dated 05/03/2008. The petitioner preferred representation before the respondent authority to regularize her service on the basis that she had worked for more than 10 years continuously from 2010 till date. The respondent No.2 vide order 10/10/2024 rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post on which the petitioner is working is a vacant and sanctioned post and the petitioner is working on the said post continuously for a considerable long period. Moreover, the petitioner is having all the requisite qualification for the said post on which she is working. Looking to the considerable long period of service of the petitioner under the department itself shows that the service of the petitioner does not create any extra burden/expense on the department. On the contrary, her service is very needful for the department to perform its day to day functions. Learned counsel further submits that in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India, SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the persons in regular service for more than 10 years are required to be regularised. The petitioner is entitled for regularisation on the basis of long tenure of service rendered by her as a daily wager for more than 10 years. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that they will consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 5. The petitioner is running from pillar to post and the State Government has issued a notification dated 5.3.2008 by which it has been specifically mentioned that in light of judgment passed in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, as one time settlement the persons who were in service for more than 10 years may be considered, but, till date, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. Further, in light of 4 Umadevi case (supra), Government of Chhattisgarh has also issued a circular dated 5.3.2008, according to which, the employees who have completed 10 years of service were directed to be considered for regularisation. The view taken in Umadevi case (supra) has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Prakash and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2010) 4 SCC 179 and Sheo Narain Nagar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 13 SCC 432. 6. The aspect of regularisation has also been considered in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India, SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 in which it has been held in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under: “26. While the judgment in Umadevi (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 Umadevi (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 5 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.” 7. Recently, in the case of Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated necessity of regularisation for Class III and Class IV employees based on Umadevi case (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 as under: 13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements. 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Umadevi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Umadevi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices. 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer’s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so —allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily- wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfill ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as 6 done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India (supra)” in the following paragraphs: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 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 labelled 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. 7 • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re- engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: “the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.” 8. Considering the facts of the case, submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, considering the case of the petitioner in the light of aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court could not take a view different from that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly the respondents authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her regularisation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh