1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9136 of 2022 1 - Heera Lal S/o Late Mansha Lal Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Lanjhiyatola, Tehsil - Chhuiekhadan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattis- garh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Re- sources Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Department Of Water Resources Mantralaya, Ma- hanadi Godawari Kachar, Sanker Nagar Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur,Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Division - Chhuiekhadan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner as VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 well as Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the State/respon- dents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following re- liefs:- “(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 petitioners for consideration of regularization of their services, for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to is- sue appropriate writ quashing the impugned order dated 28/9/2021 and direct the respondent author- ities to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of their actual entitlement with all consequential benefits. (iii) Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case This petition, may be allowed with cost. ” 3. The facts of the case is that the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court by which the respondent authorities are not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization though the petitioner is working as Labour since year 1986 under Water Resources De- partment, Division Chuikhandan, District Rajnandgaon. The peti- tioner was appointed as Labour way back in the year 1986 on daily wages and since then, he is continuously working on the said post. However, the petitioner was removed from work on 30.10.2008 without any prior notice, thereafter, on 25.04.2015, the Labour Court setaside the retrenchment of the petitioner and 3 passed the award for reinstatement to his earlier post with benefit of continuity of service with no back wages. Thereafter, on 13.03.2021, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Hon'ble Court for direction to the respondent authorities to con- sider his case for regularization. On 14.06.2021, this Court in WPS No- 2282/2021 considered the facts that the petitioner had worked for a period of around 22 years from 1986 to 2008 and thereafter on his reinstatement in 2015, he again put in more than 6 years of service and his service would be treated as in continu- ous service from 03.05.1986 till date, and it was directed to the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision for regulari- sation of the petitioner. However, vide impugned order dated 28.09.2021, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been denied. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a low paid employee who has been appointed on daily wages way back in the year 1986 and since then he is working in the Water Resource Department, as such, 22 years of service has been spent by the petitioner till year 2008 and after his reinstatement in the year 2015, he was put in more than 6 years, i.e. total about 28 years were spent by the petitioner in the service, however, he is not being considered for regularization in spite of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order in the matter of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in [2006] 3 S.C.R. 953 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed for consid- 4 eration of employees for regularization on the basis of their long serving in the Government Departments. The State Government has also issued a circular dated 05.03.2008, according to which, the State Government has directed for considering the case of 3rd and 4th grade employees who are in service since last 10 years. He further submits that though there is a specific direction of the State Government, however, the case of the petitioner has not been considered till date, as such, the direction may be issued to respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and to pass appropriate orders for regularizing the petitioner. 5. Further, reliance has been placed in the matter of Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India and others decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 to contend that the case of the petitioner for regularization ought to have been consid- ered, especially keeping in mind that they have completed more than 10-17 years of the service. It is further submitted that without giving any opportunity of hearing, vide impugned order dated 28.09.2021, the claim of the petitioner for regulaisation has been denied, which is illegal, improper, bad in law and requires to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the State Government has issued the circular dated 05.03.2008, however, they will consider the case in accordance with law and pass nec- essary orders within stipulated time period. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the documents appended to the writ petition. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in [2006] 3 S.C.R. 953 has held in para 46 as under:- “46. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to im- pose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, there- fore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular em- ployees be paid to these daily wage employees with 6 effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of em- ployees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes De- partment in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the di- rection of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also no- tice that the High Court has not adverted to the as- pect as to whether it was regularization or it was giv- ing permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to com- pete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the re- cruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a sig- nificant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.” 7 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) INSC 1034 has held in paras 22, 26 and 27 as under:- “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects work- ers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often charac- terized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treat- ment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Govern- ment institutions, entrusted with upholding the princi- ples of fairness and justice, bear an even greater re- sponsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in mis- use 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. 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 misinter- preted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appoint- ments. It categorically held that employees in irregu- lar appointments, who were engaged in duly sanc- tioned posts and had served continuously for more 8 than ten years, should be considered for regulariza- tion as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is be- ing subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to in- discriminately 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, over- looking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This se- lective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employ- ees 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 ex- tended periods, especially when their roles are inte- gral to the organization's functioning, not only con- travenes international labour standards but also ex- poses the organization to legal challenges and un- dermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the princi- ples of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the pri- 9 vate sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 10. Furthermore, in the matter of Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India and others reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose ap- pointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced herein-below :- “5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employ- ment and the rights thereof cannot be merely de- termined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved sig- nificantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the tempo- rary and scheme-specific nature of their initial en- gagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a De- partmental Promotional Committee and their sus- tained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsider- 10 ation of their employment status. 6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circum- stances under which the appellants were em- ployed and have continued their service. The re- liance on procedural formalities at the outset can- not be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appoint- ments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Umadevi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Umadevi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" ap- pointments underscoring the importance of con- sidering 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 proce- dures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Umadevi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: "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: AIR 1967 SC 1071), R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409: (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507: 11 1980 SCC (L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR 937] and re- ferred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified per- sons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the inter- vention 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 above referred 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 ap- pointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of or- ders of the courts or of tribunals and should fur- ther ensure that regular recruitments are under- taken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that re- quire to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now em- ployed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that reg- ularisation, if any already made, but not sub ju- dice, need not be reopened based on this judg- ment, 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 12 time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the sub- stantive 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.” 11. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Uma Devi (Supra) and Jaggo (Supra) as also in the matter of Vinod Kumar (Supra), it is apparent that temporary employees cannot be made victim of their temporary service and they are required to be considered for reg- ularization. It is their legitimate expectation to be regularized and they cannot suffer from misuse of "Temporary" labels, arbitrary ter- mination, lack of career progression, using outsourcing as a shield and denial of basic rights and benefits as they are serving with the respondent authorities. 12. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the arguments advanced on behalf of the respec- tive parties and further considering the fact that the State Govern- ment has issued the notification dated 08.03.2008, according to which, the State Government has directed for considering the case of 3rd and 4th grade employees who are in service since last or more than 10 years as also the fact that the petitioner was ap- pointed on daily wages basis; working as a labour and has com- pleted approx. 28 years of her service, this Court is of the firm 13 view that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his service and the respondent authorities are required to consider the case of the petitioner for his regularization as he is a low paid em- ployee, who is working for 28 years on the post of Labour in the Water Resources Department. 13. In view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and give all consequential benefits with respect to his regularization and decide the same while passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid direction/observation, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge Vishakha