1 2025:CGHC:8052 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5406 of 2023 1 - Ishwar Sahu S/o Shri Jaypal Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o 462, Subhash Chandra Ward No. 15, Sarora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh- 493114 2 - Hemant Sen, S/o Shri Sitaram Sen, Aged About 53 Years R/o 149, Nishadpara, Chhatera, District Raipur Chhattisgarh- 493441 3 - Sonchand Sahu S/o Late Shri Santosh Chand Sahu, Aged About 54 Years R/o 187, Sangam Chowk, Chandkhuri, Chandkhurai, Chand Khuri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh- 492101 4 - Shiv Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Derha Ram Sahu, Aged About 59 Years R/o Subhash Chawk, Kunra, Ward 3, Kunra (Kura), District Raipur Chhattisgarh- 493221 5 - Ram Khilawan Rawat, S/o Late Shri Sunder Lal Yadav, Aged About 60 Years R/o 129, Parsada, Sarora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh- 493114 6 - Lakshman Yadav, S/o Late Shri Jagdish Yadav, Aged About 51 Years R/o Audhi, District Durg Chhattisgarh- 490021 7 - Parameshwar Singh Thakur, S/o Late Shri Vishram Singh Thakur, Aged About 51 Years R/o 1067, Indra Nagar, Dundera, Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh- 491107 8 - Ramkisun Thakur, S/o Shri Phirta Ram, Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 255, Barbandha Para, Borid, Borid, District Durg Chhattisgarh- 491111 RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.03.26 16:43:35 +0530 2 9 - Chovaram Chandrakar, S/o Late Shri Sakharam Chandrakar, Aged About 64 Years R/o 118, Kumhali Village, Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh- 491111 10 - Suresh Patel, S/o Late Shri Sarjan Patel, Aged About 53 Years R/o 44, Kanharpuri, Dongargaon, Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh- 491441 11 - Tahlu Ram Sahu, S/o Late Shri Kundan Das, Aged About 56 Years R/o 21, Kallutola, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 491558 12 - Khemran Sahu, S/o Late Shri Bhauram Sahu, Aged About 49 Years R/o Lachhanpur, District Baloda Bazar- 493526 13 - Mannu Lam Sahu, S/o Late Shri Bhulauram Sahu, Aged About 53 Years R/o 64/2, Sahupara, Parsada (Joshi), District Raipur- 493885 14 - Lakhan Lal Sahu, S/o Late Shri Kisunlal Sahu, Aged About 49 Years R/o Basin, District Gariyaband- 493992 15 - Jaitram Yadav, S/o Shri Nokheram Yadav, Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 343, Baghera, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 491441 16 - Rajkumar, S/o Late Shri Tulsi Ram, Aged About 51 Years R/o Dadhi, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh- 491335 17 - Malo Tirkey, D/o Late Shri Jagan Lakra, Aged About 37 Years R/o Bhatti Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh- 497001 18 - Umakant Tiwari S/o Shri Sachidanand Tiwari, Aged About 49 Years R/o Kota, Dhol, Kotadol, District Koriya Chhattisgarh- 497778 19 - Vijay Kumar Keshri, S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Gupta, Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Near Pahuna Dukan, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh- 497001 20 - Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Shri Ravishankar Lal Shrivastava, Aged About 42 Years R/o 75/1, Pandari, District Balrampur- 497225 21 - Vimla Devi, W/o Shri Nain Das, Aged About 47 Years R/o Mayapur, Turrapani, Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, District Surguja- 497001 3 22 - Pusnath Sonwani, S/o Shri Natai Sonwani, Aged About 56 Years R/o 42, Maharajganj, Aayurved Aspatal Para, Balrampur, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh 497119 23 - Ram, S/o Shri Shomar Say, Aged About 48 Years R/o Graam Panchayat Mansukh, Ward No. 6, Mansukh, Koriya, District Koriya- 497335 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director, Directorate Ayurveda, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha And Homoeopathy (Ayush) 4 - Divisional Officer, Ayurved, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Principal, Government Ayurved College, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s: 4 “A. Issue a writ directing the Respondent No.3 to regularize the service of the Petitioners in view of the services rendered by the Petitioners. B. Issue a writ directing the Respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 30.03.2023 addressed by the Petitioners in a time bound manner. C. Grant any other or further reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case. D. Grant the cost of the petition to the Petitioner.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have filed this petition seeking their regularization as they are working as Sweeper/Cleaner for the last 25 to 30 years with the respondent authorities. They have filed several representations for regularization of their services, however, they have not been given any relief in compliance 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with circumspection. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has not opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. The law in respect of regularization has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases. In the case of Uma Devi (Supra) the Supreme Court has consider the aspect of regularization and its need while dealing with extensively. The same has also been discussed in the case of 5 Jaggo vs. Union of India, SLP(C) 5580/2024 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 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 6 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.” 6. 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 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 7 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. 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 8 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: • 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 9 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: “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 10 back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.” 7. 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 moths. 8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi