1 2025:CGHC:10534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3019 of 2024 1 - Devendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Santram Dewangan, Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 5, Samridhi Vihar Colony, Ratanpur Road, Sendri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Rajesh Jena S/o Benudhar Jena, Aged About 42 Years Address- Parsad Gali, Baliram Kashyap Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Bharati Verma W/o Uttam Verma, Aged About 38 Years R/o Devbhog Dairy Plant, Rajeev Nagar, Kotra Road, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Anil Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Shyam Lal Choudhary, Aged About 38 Years R/o Kelo Vihar Colony, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Peekesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Prakash Chandra Verma, Aged About 41 Years R/o Mig-02, Devbhog Dairy Colony, Ratanpur Road, Koni, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Ritu Baghel W/o Prem Minj, Aged About 38 Years R/o Devbhog Dairy Plant, Babusemra, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Krshi, Pashudhan Vikash, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner (Registrar), Co-Operativer Societies, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Block-B, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.08 12:51:46 +0530 2 3 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation, Through Its Managing Director, Urla, Post- Bmy Charouda, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State/respondent/s and Mr. Yashraj Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioners are employee of Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation/respondent No.3, they are working as Manager. They have been appointed on the vacant post, having B. Tech. qualification in Dairy Technology. They are working with the respondent No.3 since 2007 to 2015. They are seeking direction for regularization of their services. Though a resolution has been passed by the respondent No.3 in this respect, however, since the respondent No.2 has not approved the same and has rejected the claim vide impugned order dated 12.09.2023, as such, the petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for 3 following reliefs: “I. That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ and quash, set-aside the impugned letter dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the office of the respondent no.2 by declaring the same is bad in law. II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/direction(s) and direct the respondent no.2 for taking the proper steps regarding the consent sought by the respondent federation upon the proposal of the regularization of the services of the daily wage's employees including the petitioners. III. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate order/direction to the respondent federation for given all the consequential services benefit of regularization to the petitioners from its due date. IV. Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are employees of the respondent No.3, which is independent body comes under the definition of State according to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M.P. State Co- operative Dairy Federation Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar reported in 2009 15 SCC 221, and being independent body, the General body of respondent No.3 federation have framed rules for regularization and passed a resolution on 13.09.2023 and have taken a policy decision for regularization of the services of daily wages employees (Annexure-P/5) and during the meeting the 4 suggestion was given by the one member (the Joint Registrar Durg of Cooperative Society) for taking the consent from the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Raipur also before regularizing the services of the daily wages employee. Thereafter, the respondent Federation sent a letter to the respondent No.2 and sought his consent/permission for regularization of the services of daily wages employee. The petitioners also made the request through number of representations before the respondent No.2 for his consent for regularization. However, vide letter dated 12.09.2023 the office of the respondent No.2 through the other Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society, withhold the consent on the ground the state government has not issued any instruction for regularization of the services of daily wages employee. Therefore, as per direction issued by this Hon'ble High Court in WPS No. 1683/2024 on 19.03.2024, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition and challenged the validity of the letter dated 12.09.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 while seeking direction for regularization of the services of the petitioners. In pursuance of Hon'ble High Court order dated 13.06.2024, the Registrar Co- operative Society filed the affidavit on 10.07.2024 and given the reason in para 2(ii) of affidavit as after 05.03.2008, no circular was issued by the State government for regularization of the services of the daily wages and the said circular applicable in respect of those employee were engaged prior to 31.12.1997. Therefore, on 09.07.2024 he refused the proposal of the respondent federation 5 in the absence of the instruction of the State government. The respondent No.3 admitted that he has sought instruction from the Registrar for regularization of the services of daily wagers. The respondent No.3 further admitted that, the resolution was passed on 13.09.2023 for regularization of the services of daily wagers. But vide letter dated 09.07.2024 the Registrar refused to grant any approval for regularization of daily wagers engaged in the federation. As the petitioners have continuously worked in the respondent federation since long against the 'sanctioned and vacant post after facing the recruitment process and the rules for regularization has already been framed by the respondent Federation and the petitioners have fulfilled the criteria for a regular recruitment process as also regularization. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for regularization within stipulated time so that they may get the benefit of the regular employees. Further, looking into the length of services of the petitioners and the valuable time which was spent by them with the respondent federation, the case of the petitioners for regularization was considered by the appointing authority and has passed resolution on 13.09.2023, and since the respondent No.3 is the independent body governed with its own bylaws framed under the provision of C.G. Cooperative Society Act 1960, therefore the Registrar, the respondent No.2 would not have power to withhold the consent for regularization of the services of the petitioners. Thus, the act and action of the respondent No.2 is illegal, erroneous and bad in the 6 eyes of law. Relying upon the order passed in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India, reported in SLP(C) 5580/2024, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court reinforcing the rights of long- term temporary employees engaged in essential functions within government institutions. By recognizing the appellants' prolonged and unblemished service, the Court established that the mere label of "temporary" or "part-time" cannot be used to deny rightful claims to regularization when the nature of work is perennial and integral to an organization's operations. The judgment emphasizes the need for fairness, equity, and adherence to constitutional principles in employment practices. It cautions against the misuse of temporary contracts as a means to evade obligations towards employees and highlights the responsibility of government entities to lead by example in upholding workers' rights. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State i.e. respondents No.1 & 2 submits that since the petitioners are employees of respondent No.3, as such, they can not claim for regularization at par with State employees. The Rules are different and are governed by their own Rules and Regulations. Basically their claims are required to be decided by the respondent No.3. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that they have passed resolution for regularization of employees, however, since respondent No.2 has not forwarded claim for regularization and 7 has dismissed the proposal for regularization, as such, they are unable to pass orders for regularization. The order of regularization was also issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No. 4092/2024 in the matter of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines workers Union, decided on 12.03.2024. They have filed several representations for regularization of their services, however, they have not been given any relief in respect of order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 4 SCC 1, by considering their representations for regularization of their services. The same has also been discussed in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India, (Supra) in which it has been held in para 26 and 27 as under : “26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary 8 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.” 7. Recently in the case of Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 the Supreme Court has reiterated necessity of regularization for Class III and Class IV employees based on Uma Devi’s (supra) case. Further State Government has also issued circular dated 05.03.2008, according to which the regularization of Class III and Class IV employees were directed to be considered. Since the petitioners were working in the concerned department as Sweeper/Cleaner for last 25 to 30 years. They are low paid employees and after serving for 25 to 30 years with the respondent authorities, it would be 9 unjustified to leave them on their fate. The respondent State has also passed circular dated 05.03.2008 on the basis of which the State authorities are required to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of there service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also passed various orders in the matter of regularization of employment to the petitioners as the appointment of the present petitioners can be classified as “irregular” but can not be termed as illegal. The same has also been discussed in the case of Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paras 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)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily- wage status or continued unfair practices. 10 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer’s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India (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: 11 • 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. • 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: 12 “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. I have heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 9. Considering facts of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, considering the case of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid principles initiated 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 respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for their regularization within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi