1 2025:CGHC:56482 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6661 of 2023 1 - Smt. Amrita Banjare W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Banjare, Aged About 37 Years R/o Qtr.No. 37/2, Street 6a, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Technical Education, Man Power And Planning Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 19.11.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization along with the similarly placed appointees in light of order dated 23.10.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.A. No.14/2017, subject to the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.7864-7889/2019. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which deems fit and proper including cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lecturer (I.T.) in the Government Polytechnic College and was duly made after following the selection procedure prescribed under the 2004 as well as the 2012 Rules, albeit on a contractual basis. However, at the time when other persons similarly situated approached this Hon’ble Court seeking regularization of their services, the petitioner was instead served with an illegal termination order. Consequently, rather than joining the group of identically placed appointees in seeking regularization, the petitioner was compelled to file a separate petition challenging the said illegal termination, which had been issued without conducting a proper enquiry and by erroneously treating her pursuit of higher studies—undertaken without prior permission—as misconduct. It was only after this Hon’ble Court set aside the illegal termination order that the petitioner was in a position to file the present petition, wherein she now seeks the same relief of regularization 3 as has already been granted by this Hon’ble Court to other similarly situated appointees. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, Smt. Amrita Banjare, was duly appointed as Lecturer on contractual basis on 18.10.2010 at Government Polytechnic College, Durg, after undergoing a proper and lawful selection process in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004 and 2012, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, keeping in view the mandates of Articles 14 and 16. The petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications and experience, her appointment and continuance having been supported by valid appointment, experience and qualification certificates. It is further submitted that despite the availability of a large number of sanctioned posts of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic and Engineering Colleges, the State continued to appoint eligible candidates like the petitioner on contractual basis against vacant sanctioned posts and extended her services from time to time for about five years, reflecting the continuing need of teaching staff. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner’s termination dated 01.09.2016 was set aside by this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 5115 of 2016 vide order dated 22.07.2021, thereby affirming the legality of her appointment and continuance. It is argued that the respondent-State, instead of regularizing similarly situated contractual employees, is seeking to fill up posts already occupied by such employees through fresh 4 advertisements, which is arbitrary and unjust. The petitioner has rendered long and continuous service, has crossed the eligible age for other government employment, and her appointment cannot be termed illegal or irregular, rather her continued engagement against a vacant sanctioned post clearly establishes the State’s requirement and the petitioner’s suitability for regularization. He further submits that non-regularization of the petitioner on her respective post amounts to an impermissible hire and fire approach, repeatedly deprecated by the Courts, particularly when the employer is the State, and that the impugned action is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi and subsequent judgments. He further submits that the State cannot adopt an exploitative stance, especially when the petitioner has served for over five years and thereby lost opportunities to apply elsewhere, and further contends that she was appointed under the 2004 Rules and continued even after the 2012 Rules came into force, placing her on the same footing as the appellants in W.A. No. 14/2017, except that she was illegally terminated for pursuing higher studies without permission—a termination that has since been set aside by this Hon’ble Court, thus restoring her status quo ante and bringing her again within the category of employees appointed under the 2004 Rules and continued post-2012, it is additionally submitted that the benefit of the order passed in W.A. No. 14/2017 has not yet been extended to the appellants therein owing to an 5 interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and that the petitioner reserves the right to raise any other necessary grounds at the time of final arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 to contend that the petitioner is entitled for regularization. Further reliance has been placed upon the matter of Vinod Kumar and others vs. Union of India & others reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 to contend that the case of the petitioner for regularization ought to have been considered especially keeping kin mind that the petitioner has completed more than 10-17 years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the matter of State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. 4. Learned counsel has also relied upon various decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tukaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No. 1703/2015, as well as in the case of Sanjeeb Kumar Rathore vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, where regularisation was granted in similar circumstances. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the same and submits that the petitioner is working on contractual basis, claiming relief to direct the concerned respondent authorities to 6 consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. He further submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever prayed for by her in this petition. Therefore, the writ petition is being devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in [2006] 3 S.C.R. 95 3 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 impose such an obligation on 7 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, therefore, 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 employees be paid to these daily wage employees with 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 employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department 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 direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the 8 aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving 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 compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant 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.” 8. 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 workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, 9 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. 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 10 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 organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. 11 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.” 9. 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 appointment 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 employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent 12 posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained 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 reconsideration 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 circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot 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 13 appointments 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" appointments underscoring the importance of considering 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 procedures 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: 1980 SCC (L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR 937] 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 14 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 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. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, 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)" 15 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 time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive 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.” 10. Further, in the matter of State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing 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 16 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. 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], 17 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 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 18 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. " It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: 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 19 and continuously for more than ten years. 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. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those 20 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, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, 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 21 for the post and if so, regularize their services.” 11.Furthermore, in the matter of Tukaram (Supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “22. Now if we look into the facts of the present case, undisputedly, by now it has to be accepted that these workmen were initially appointed on different dates as mentioned in the aforementioned chart. Perusal of the said chart would reveal that all the workmen have put in a considerable period of time from the date of their appointment before they were discontinued in service and after the order of the Labour Court which in due course of time has attained finality they have also been reinstated. From the date of reinstatement also till date all the workmen are still working with the Respondents and from the date of reinstatement also they have put in a considerable period of time. All these workers have been slogging with the Respondents with a hope and legitimate expectation of being regularized one day. Based upon the judgment of Umadevi (supra), the State of Chhattisgarh also has issued a circular on 5.3.2008. The obiect of the said circular also was for considering the 22 persons who had completed more than 10 years of service they should be regularized. The alleged order of termination of service of the daily wage workers was held to be illegal by the Labour Court. The effect of the termination order being set aside would mean that the workmen remained in continuous employment as if the order of ance never existed. All these workmen as on date are all middle aged persons and would not be now in a position for getting a regular employment elsewhere. 23. Considering the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a social welfare legislation and the circular dated 5.3.2008 also being the circular of the State Government issued keeping in mind the welfare of the poor workers and has been issued for the promotion and welfare of the people ensuring equality and equity between the workers appointed on daily wage basis and the post against which these persons are discharging so as to subserve the common good that can occur to the workers for the long service rendered by the respective workmen. 24. Once when we reach to the conclusion that the implication of the order of dismissal, removal 23 or termination being set aside it has to be construed as, the workers would be put in the same position at which they were, but for the illegal dismissal, removal or termination order. If this analogy is applied to the facts of the present cases then all the workmen before this Court would squarely fall within the ambit of the category of workers who would be eligible for regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008. 25. In view of the legal precedents enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and also considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of these workmen for consideration of regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008 is just, proper and legal. 26. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The question of law discussed earlier to be decided in these petitions is answered in the affirmative in favour of the petitioners-workers holding that they would Dot-fall-in the category of litigious worker and that they would be entitled for continuity of service for the period they were out of employment while they were litigating 24 before the Labour Court. As a consequence, the workers in those cases where the claim has been rejected by the respective Respondents on the ground of there being break in service or the claim of the workers being rejected on the ground of their not serving the Respondents prior to 31.12.1997 are all set aside/quashed. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of these petitioners-workers for regularization in accordance with the circular granting them the advantage of continuity of service from the date of their initial engagement till date.” 12. 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 regularization. It is their legitimate expectation to be regularized and they cannot suffer from misuse of "Temporary" labels, arbitrary termination, lack of career progression, using outsourcing as a shield and denial of basic rights and benefits as they are serving with the respondent authorities. 13. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the 25 case as also the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties particularly the fact that the petitioner has appointed on contractual basis and she has completed more than 10-14 years of her service further she has filed representation before the concerned respondent authorities ventilating her grievance for regularization. 14. In view of above, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for regularization keeping in mind that the petitioner is working with the respondent authorities since long back and her service is still required by the respondent authorities. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The concerned respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat