1 2025:CGHC:20089 NAFR Order Reserved on : 21.4.2025 Order Delivered on : 02.5.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3405 of 2019 Mahendra Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Nainsingh Thakur Aged About 41 Years R/o Amora, Post Amora, Thana, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secratary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (ADM/Non-Gazzated) Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg, Circle Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgrh. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 6090 of 2019 1 - Prashant Rangari S/o Late Shri Babulal Rangari Aged About 45 Years Chowkidar (Collectorate Rate) Ward No. 12, Station Para Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhojraj S/o Siyaram Sinha Aged About 41 Years Chowkidar(Colletorate Rate) Shankarpur Ward No. 10, Goura Chowk Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Poshan Kumar Verma S/o Shri Satruhan Verma Aged About 30 Years Chowkidar (Collectorate Rate) Motipur Ward No. 03 Ajad Chowk Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioners Versus BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.05.02 15:23:16 +0530 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (ADM/Non-Gazzated) Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Cheif Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 6188 of 2019 Smt. Mamta Elamkar W/o Shri Anil Kumar Elmkar Aged About 44 Years R/o- Opposite Budh Vihar Gali No. 03 Ward No.11 Shankar Nagar Durg District- Durg Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (ADM/Non-Gazzated) Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Durg District- Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. FS Khare, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) CAV Order 1. With the consent of the parties, the above cases are heard finally. 2. Since common issue is involved in these writ petitions, as such, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. For convenience, WPS No.3405/2019 will be treated as leading case. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, advertisement (Annexure-P/1) was issued by respondent No.4 in the year 2008 for filling up vacant posts of ‘Choukidar’ on Collector Rate, by direct recruitment through written examination and interview. In pursuance of Annexure-P/1, the petitioners 3 applied for the same and after completion of due examination process, they were appointed on the said post of ‘Choukidar’ in the year 2008 itself. After joining, the petitioner was posted in Dalli range and other petitioners were posted in Durg and Rajnandgaon range. Service book of the petitioners were also prepared by the respondent department. Even after appointment of the petitioners, posts of ‘Choukidar’ are still vacant in the respondent/department. In pursuance of Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8), the petitioners are entitled to regularization on their post and also to get revised pay scale, as they have completed more than 16 -17 years of service. Despite that, they have neither been regularized on the said post, nor granted revised pay scale. Therefore, the petitioners have filed instant writ petitions seeking following relief(s), which are similar in all the writ petitions:- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint/confirm the petition on regular post and grant him revised pay scale after 3 years from his date of appointment. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be call the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner’s matter. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of advertisement (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.4, after going through examination process against vacant posts. Thereafter, they have been completed their services for more than 16- 17 years, despite that they have not been regularized on the said posts. Whereas, as per the Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8), contingency 4 and work charged employees, who were appointed by the District Level Selection Committee, were required to be granted revised pay scale after completion of three years treating them as temporary members. This criteria has already been fulfilled by the petitioners, despite that, their services have not been regularized and revised pay has also not been granted to them. Referring to the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. arising out of SLP (C) No.5580/2024, learned counsel submits that Hon’ble Apex Court has held that under the garb of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, after long lapse of time, the State cannot deny regularization after serving long period by the employee. Learned counsel also referring to WPS No.6234/2023 (Neelima Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India & others) and other batch of writ petitions decided by Coordinate Bench vide Order dated 19.02.2025, would submit that in aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners/employees were also not regularized even after working for quite long time of more than 10 years, therefore, the learned Coordinate Bench has directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization. Lastly, learned counsel would submit that case of the petitioners is much better than the case of the petitioners in aforecited cases, as the petitioners of the instant cases are appointed against vacant posts, that too, after due process of examination, therefore, he prayed that relief sought for may be granted to the petitioners. 5. The respondent/State has filed its reply stating inter alia that appointment of the petitioners was on Collector Rate basis and they were not appointed against any sanctioned post under Work Charged or Contingency Paid Establishment. There is no rule or provision for their promotion to Class- IV category, therefore, they are not entitled to get regular pay scale in terms 5 of Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8). Learned counsel for the State referring to its reply would submit that, though the petitioners have worked for more than 11 years with respondent department, but, as per Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8), only those employees can be granted regular pay, who have worked under Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment. Since, the petitioners were appointed on the Collector Rate basis, therefore, their case is not covered under Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8), as they do not fulfill criteria laid down in the Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure- P/8), therefore, they are not entitled to get the relief sought for by them. Learned counsel further submits that in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra), the State Government has taken a policy decision and as one time measure, daily wager/adhoc employees, who were appointed prior to 31.12.1997, have been regularized vide Circular dated 05.3.2008. The petitioners of the instant petitions, do not fulfill aforesaid criteria, therefore, their services cannot be regularized, hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record shows that appointment of the petitioners have been made against vacant posts after due selection process. As per advertisement (Annexure-P/1), written examination and interview of the candidates were conducted and thereafter vide Order dated 06.8.2008 (Annexure-P/3) of respondent No.4/Divisional Forest Officer, the petitioners were appointed. 8. During the course of submission, when specific question was posed to learned Counsel for the State that under which rule appointment of the petitioners will govern, then he submits that, their appointment shall be 6 governed under the ‘Chhattisgarh Workcharged and Contingency paid employee Recruitment and Service Rules 1975’ ( for short ‘the Rules 1975’). 9. As per Clause 2(a) of the Rules 1975, ‘Contingency Paid employee’ has been defined as under:- (a) “Contingency Paid employee” means a Person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to office contingencies excluding the employees who are employees for certain period only in a year. 10. With regard to recruitment and grant of revised pay scale to the work charged contingencies paid employees, General Administration Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) had issued Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8), which reads as under:- e/;izns’k 'kklu lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ¼osru vk;ksx izdks"B½ Øekad 192@1@osvkiz@84 Hkksiky] fnukad 10 ebZ] 84 izfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx] v/;{k] jktLo eaMy e-iz- Xokfy;j] leLr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr ftyk/;{k] e/;izns’kA fo"k;%& dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fuf/k ls osru ikus okys deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkjrh ds laca/k esa rFkk iqujhf{kr osrueku fn;s tkus ds laca/k esaA lanHkZ%& vlk/kkj.k jkti= fnukad 14-10-82 lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ladYi Ø- 449@1@osvkiz@82] fnukad 13-10-82 i`"B Ø- 2136 ,oa 2137 7 'kklu }kjk pkS/kjh osru vk;ksx dh vuq’kalk ij dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fuf/k ls osru ikus okys deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fer osrueku nsus ds laca/k esa Nkuchu dk dk;Z ,d jkT; Lrjh; lfefr dks lkSaik x;k FkkA 'kklu us bl lfefr dh vuq’kalk ij dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fuf/k ls osru izkIr djus okys deZpkfj;ksa dks u;s iqujhf{kr osrueku nsus ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk] vuqHko ,oa vU; 'krsZa fuEukuqlkj fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gS%& 1- bl lsok ds LFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa dks fnukad 01-04-1982 ls ifjf’k"V&,d ds vuqlkj osrueku Lohd`r fd;s tk;sA 2- dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk ls osru ikus ,sls deZpkjh tks fnuakd 01- 01-1981 dks lsok esa Fks fdUrq ftUgksaus mDr frfFk dks u rks LFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa dh izkfLFkfr izkIr dh Fkh vkSj u gh vLFkkbZ deZpkfj;ksa dh fLFkfr izkIr dh Fkh muds ekeys esa ,sls deZpkjh izkjaHk ds ikap o"kZ rd lsok ds lnL; ugha jgsaxsA izkjaHk ds ikap o"kZ ds i’pkr~ ;s deZpkjh vLFkkbZ lnL;ksa dh izkfLFkfr ds ik= gksaxs vkSj iqu% ikap o"kZ rd vLFkkbZ lsok iwjh djus ds ckn os lsok ds LFkkbZ lnL; dh fLFkfr ds ik= gksaxsA 3- fnukad 01-01-1981 dh fLFkfr esa ftu deZpkfj;ksa us LFkkbZ fLFkfr izkIr ugha dh Fkh fdUrq lsok ds vLFkkbZ lnL; dh izkfLFkfr izkIr dj yh Fkh ;fn ;s fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa vko’;d vgZrk;sa ifjf’k"V nks ds vuqlkj j[krs gksa rks mUgsa Hkh iqujhf{kr osruekuksa dk ykHk fn;k tk;A blh Js.kh ds ,sls deZpkjh] tks fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ugha j[krs] dks tc rd os lsok ds LFkkbZ lnL; ugha curs mUgsa orZeku O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj osru ,oa HkRrs vkfn izkIr gksrs jgsaxsA 4- Hkfo"; esa bl lsok ds deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkjrh ftyk Lrj p;u lfefr }kjk dh tk;A ftyk Lrj p;u lfefr dk v/;{k] dysDVj ;k mlds }kjk euksuhr ofj"B fMIVh dysDVj] rFkk ftyk jkstxkj vf/kdkjh mldk lfpo gksxk ;g lfefr flapkbZ foHkkx] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx ,oa yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh foHkkxksa ds dk;Zikyu bathfu;jksa dks lnL; cukdj vkSj ;fn 8 vko’;d gks rks vU; foHkkxksa ls dysDVj }kjk fdlh ,d lnL; dks lg;ksftr dj xfBr dh tkuh pkfg;s bl lfefr esa nks v’kkldh; O;fDr ftudk ukekadu jkT; 'kklu djsxk Hkh lnL; gksaxsA vkfnoklh ftyksa esa ftyk la;kstd vkfne tkfr dY;k.k dks lnL; cukuk tkuk pkfg;s vU; ftyksa ls gfjtuksa ds fgrksa dh ns[kHkky djus okys vf/kdkjh dks lfefr dk lnL; cuk;k tkuk pkfg;sA 5- bl p;u lfefr dks izR;sd o"kZ dk;ZHkkfjr rFkk vkdfLedrk osru Hkksxh fu;kstu laca/kh vko’;drkvksa dk fu/kkZj.k djuk pkfg;s vkSj fyf[kr vgZdkjh ijh{kk rFkk le{k HksaV vk;ksftr djuh pkfg;s vkSj mEehnokjksa dh ,d p;u lwph rS;kj djuh pkfg;s rFkk mlh esa ls dk;ZHkkfjr vkSj vkdfLedrk osru Hkksxh ,oa nSfud osru Hkksxh fu;kstu ds fy;s fu;qfDr;ka dh tkuh pkfg;sA 6- bl lsok esa deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkjrh izFke rhu lky rd dysDVj }kjk fuf’pr osru ,oa mlds i'pkr~ vLFkk;h lnL; ekudj ifjf’k"V ,d ds vuqlkj iqujhf{kr osrueku esa dh tk;sxhA iwoZ esa fu;qDr ,sls deZpkjh tks ifjf’k"V nks esa nh xbZ vgZrk j[krs gksa] mUgsa ftyk Lrjh; p;u lfefr ds le{k mifLFkr gksuk iM+sxk fdUrq p;u gksus ij mUgsa lsok esa vkus dh fLFkfr ls 3 o"kZ i'pkr~ lsok dk lnL; ekuk tkosxkA 7- Hkfo"; esa fu;qDr gksus okys deZpkfj;ksa dks iqujhf{kr osrueku nsus ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vuqHko ,oa vU; 'krsZa ifjf’k"V nks ds vuqlkj j[kh tk;A 8- lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx }kjk tks vkn’kZ Hkjrh fu;e lacaf/kr foHkkxksa dks Hksts x;s Fks muesa vko’;d la’kks/ku dj vyx ls Hksts tk jgsa gSa rkfd foHkkx muds vk/kkj ij vko’;d la’kks/ku vius fu;eksa esa dj ldsaA 9- bl lsok ds deZpkfj;ksa ds osru iqujh{k.k fu;e foRr foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk Øekad 525&4323&83 fu;e&1&pkj] fnukad 3 ekpZ] 1984 }kjk izlkfjr fd;s x;s gSaA tks fnukad 3 ekpZ] 1984 ds vlk/kkj.k jkti= esa izdkf’kr fd;s x;s rFkk foRr foHkkx ds Kkiu Øekad 599@724@fu&1@pkj] fnukad 15 9 ekpZ] 1984 esa fn;s x;s funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj iqujhf{kr osruekuksa esa osru fu/kkZj.k dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;A 10- orZeku esa ;fn bl lsok esa fu;qfDr iznku dh xbZ rks mUgsa mDr funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj ftyk Lrjh; p;u lfefr ls fu;fer djk;k tk;A ’kklu ds mijksDr fu.kZ;kuqlkj Hkfo"; esa bl lsok esa HkrhZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ izfØ;k dk dM+kbZ ls ikyu fd;k tk;A e/;izns’k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns’kkuqlkj gLrk- ¼uUgsa flag½ fo’ks"k lfpo] lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx Øekad 193@601@osvkiz@84 Hkksiky] fnukad 10 ebZ 1984 11. Perusal of Clause 5 of the aforesaid circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8) shows that, it also governs daily wager employees apart from work charged and contingency paid employees. As per Clause 8, Rules 1975 is also applicable to daily wager employees as of work charged and contingency paid employee as was conceded by the State counsel. Therefore, contention raised by the State counsel that since appointment of the petitioners were made on Collector Rate basis, as such, Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8) is not applicable to the petitioners, is not sustainable. 12. As per Clause 6 of Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8), the employees, who have been appointed on Collector Rate, shall be treated as temporary member after completion of three years and would be appointed on revised pay scale. Thus, as per the aforesaid circular, the petitioners, who were appointed on Collector rate, after completion of three years of 10 employment, ought to have been appointed/granted revised pay scale treating them as temporary member of the contingency paid employee and as provided in Clause 2(c) of the Madhya Pradesh (Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employee) Pension Rules, 1979, (for short ‘Pension Rules 1979’) after completion of 15 years of service, they ought to have been granted the status of permanent employee. Section 2(c) of the Pension Rules, 1979 reads thus:- (c) “Permanent employee” means a contingency Paid employee or a work-charged employee who has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974. 13. But, in the instant case, even the petitioners have not been granted revised pay scale, which they are otherwise entitled, as per Clause 6 of the Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8). 14. The petitioners have filed copy of Order dated 20.9.2016 (Annexure- P/12) issued by Deputy Director, Department Of Veterinary Services, Rajnandgaon and Order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure-P/13) issued by the Collector, Distt. Bastar, Jagdalpur, whereby Deputy Director and the Collector have granted revised pay scale to the employees appointed on Collector Rate after completion of three years and recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee on the basis of Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8) and earlier circulars issued by the Government of MP. Thus, vide aforesaid orders, employees appointed on Collector Rate were granted revised pay scale treating them temporary member of the contingency paid employee by other departments. 15. Case of the petitioners of the instant petitions are found to be much better than the employees, who have been benefited vide Annexure-P/12 & 11 P/13, as petitioners of instant cases have been appointed after due selection process of written examination and interview, therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have passed similar order as per Annexure P/12 & P/13 passed by Deputy Director, Department Of Veterinary Services, Rajnandgaon and Collector, Distt. Bastar respectively, granting benefit to the employees, as provided in Clause 6 of the above circular. And even after completion of 15 years of employment, the petitioners ought to have been granted the status of ‘permanent employee’, as provided in Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) (Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employee) Pension Rules, 1979, but they have been deprived by the respondent authorities from getting such benefit, which is not only illegal, but amounts to exploitation of the poor employees of Class-IV category, which is against the spirit of Constitution and judgments passed by the Apex Court. 16. Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) has wrongly been interpreted continuously by the officials of the State Government in the case of regularization of the employees, who are in employment for many years and seek regularization. Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) does not intend to penalize employees, who have served many many years fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointment that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular”, and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. 12 17. In the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. ML Kesari and Ors. Reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Apex Court while dealing with the issue with regard to regularization, has held as follows:- “5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered on 10.04.2006. In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 6. This Court in Umadevi (supra) further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) SCR 128], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] 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 regularization 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 13 that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize 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." 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against “regularization” enunciated in Umadevi (supra), if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi (supra), directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion 14 within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (supra), 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 working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.” 18. Recently, in the matter of Jaggo (supra), Apex Court has held 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 15 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. 19. Reverting into the facts of the instant case, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs that, the service condition of the petitioners shall be governed under Rules 1975 and Pension Rules 1979, which provide provision for granting status of “permanent employee” to contingency paid employees. Vide Annexure-P/12 & P/13, the Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Rajnandgaon and the Collector Distt. Bastar respectively, have granted revised pay scale to the employees appointed on the basis of Collector Rate treating them as temporary member of the contingency paid employees. Case of the present petitioners is much better than the employees benefited vide Annexure P/12 & P/13, though they are from different department. But they have also got benefited in compliance of circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8) and similar circulars issued earlier. But the petitioners, who are Class-IV employees, have been illegally deprived from getting the benefit of Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8) and Rules 1975 and Pension Rules,1979. Such lethargic and heedless conduct of the respondent authorities is highly depricatable. 20. In view of the above discussion, I feel inclined to allow all the above three writ petitions filed by the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petitions 16 are allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of revised pay scale, as per Circular dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure-P/8) and their regularization as they have already been completed about 16-17 years in their employment. 21. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini