- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106099 OF 2023 (S-REG) BETWEEN: SHRI. MANJUNATH E. BHADRAPURA, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT KSFIC DANDELI ADD. NO.83, VEERANJANEYA VIHAR GOKUL, HUBLI, TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD- 580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KARNATAKA STATE FOREST INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., FOREST COMPOUND, VANAVIKAS, 3RD FLOOR, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU- 560003. 2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND REGIONAL MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE FOREST INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., FOREST COMPOUND, K.C.PARK, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD- 580001 PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS GENERAL MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ROJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.29 10:54:34 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO.ADM-1/LEGAL/RM/DW/18-19 DATED 12.05.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. KARAAKAININI/PRAVYADHAA/CV/139/ 2023-24 DATED 03.07.2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of an order dated 12.05.2023, by which, the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services comes to be rejected. 2. Heard Sri Mrutryunjaya S. Hallikeri, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for respondents. 3. The petitioner is appointed as a driver in the respondent-Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’, for short) in the year 2001 on 01.01.2002, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed against sanctioned vacant post and was being transferred to different places to work as a driver. On 14.10.2012, on the score that the petitioner has completed 10 years of service against a sanctioned vacant post, submits a representation seeking regularization of his services and salary to be paid on par with regular employees. 4. It transpires that on the demand for regularization, the respondents dispense with his service. This is called in question by the petitioner before the Labour Court, by raising a dispute in KID No.2/2015. The Labour Court is said to have allowed the dispute by passing an order of reinstatement into services. The petitioner then gets reinstated into services with 50% backwages. 5. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have been continued in service as he has been reinstated as a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 driver pursuant to the order of the Court. The petitioner then again submits his claim seeking regularization of services in terms of plethora of representations submitted on 15.02.2023, 24.03.2023 and 07.06.2023. The case of the petitioner comes to be rejected by the impugned order/endorsement that his case cannot be considered on the score that the service of the petitioner was litigative. It is the case of the respondents in the endorsement that the service of the petitioner was continued on the strength of the interim order granted by the Labour Court and therefore, the services cannot be regularized. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner admits that the Labour Court had granted interim order of stay. He would submit that the petitioner was terminated on the demand of regularization, the Labour Court later sets aside the order of termination and directs reinstatement with 50% backwages though the words ‘continuity of service’ are missing in the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner is deemed to have been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 continued in the service. Therefore, he submits that the respondent-Corporation has to consider his case for regularization of services. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, initially salary was paid to the petitioner through an outsourced agency and later the salary is paid by the respondent-Corporation. He would submit that in such circumstances, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others1 would become an impediment for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. 8. The learned counsel would admit the fact that the petitioner has been working against sanctioned vacant post right from 2002 till today with the break that he was terminated and reinstated pursuant to the order of the of the Labour Court. 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 10. The aforenarrated facts, link in the chain of events, the dates, are not in dispute. One glaring factor that cannot be brushed aside in the case at hand is the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.11.2002 against a sanctioned vacant post in the post of a driver. Therefore, by the time the judgment in the case of Uma Devi was rendered by the Apex Court, which was on 10th April, 2006, the petitioner had already put in 4 years, of service. The petitioner has, as on today, rendered 22 years of service with a break concerning his termination in the year 2014. 11. The petitioner raises a dispute before the Labour Court which comes to be allowed directing reinstatement with backwages. The petitioner is reinstated into the service to the post of driver and has been working since the date of the award which is 29th July, 2022. One - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 fact cannot be ignored is that prior to the termination of the petitioner in the year 2014, he had completed 10 years of service against a sanctioned vacant post of driver. The termination comes on a demand being made by the petitioner for regularization. Therefore, it is a case where the respondents will have to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of services taking the service rendered by the petitioner with effect from 01.11.2002 till today including the break of 7 years from 2015-2022. Even if the break of 7 years is taken note off, the petitioner had completed more than 10 years of service in the said cadre since he was working as against sanctioned vacant post, albeit on temporary basis, the respondents are now obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services strictly in consonance with judgments rendered by the Apex Court from time to time qua such regularization which would be in the case of Uma Devi; State of Karnataka and others vs. M. L. Kesari and others2 and the latest judgment of 2 (2010) 9 SCC 247 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and others3. The Apex Court considering the entire spectrum of the law regulating to regularization in the aforesaid judgment has held as follows : “7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous service, the nature of their work, and the lack of any backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had functioned without any break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees, and had been assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent's offices. The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's decision and the submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi3 holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant housekeeping and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants have approached this Court by way of these appeals. 8. On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents: i). Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants emphasize their long, uninterrupted service spanning well over a decade-and in some instances, 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 exceeding two decades. They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the respondent's offices. (ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities- such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks- were not casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional work environment, effectively aligning with roles typically associated with regular posts. (iii). Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the appellants were never issued any warning or adverse remarks. They highlight that their work was consistently satisfactory, and there was no indication from the respondents that their performance was not satisfactory or required improvement. (iv). Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Guidelines: The appellants assert that their appointments were not "illegal" but at most "irregular." Drawing on the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi4, they submit that long-serving employees in irregular appointments-who fulfil essential, sanctioned functions-are entitled to consideration for regularization. (v). Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar engagements have been regularized. They contend that denying them the same benefit, despite their longer service and crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. (vi). Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The appellants reject the respondents' reliance on formal educational requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced earlier and that the nature of their work does not inherently demand formal schooling. They argue that retrospectively imposing such qualifications is unjustified given their proven capability over many years. (vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their long, integral service. They maintain that - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 fairness, equity, and established judicial principles call for their regularization rather than abrupt termination 9. On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents: (i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was never intended to be permanent or full-time. (ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts. According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent workforce. (iii). Non-Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Criteria: Relying heavily on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the conditions necessary for regularization. They emphasize that merely serving a long period on a part-time or ad-hoc basis does not create a right to be regularized. (iv). Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that even if the appellants were to be considered for regular appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into regular service. (v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be interfered with by the courts. (vi). No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue of long-standing temporary or parttime engagement, acquires a vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the appellants' claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that the High Court was correct in dismissing their petition. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas-a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings. 12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service. 15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to regularization. 16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility. 17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed-cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening-does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle. 18. The appellants have also established that individuals with lesser tenure or comparable roles were regularized by the respondents. The counsel for the appellants had submitted a seniority list for employees working as the Multi- Tasking Staff published by the Respondent Department on 04.03.2024 wherein the following employees were a part of the staff without the required educational qualification: Sl. No. Name Educational Qualification Date of Continuous CWC Service Temporary or Permanent posts Category 1. Krishna s/o Lt. Khajan Singh Illiterate 26.07.1988 Permanent SC 2. Naresh Devi w/o Ld. Surendra Kumar Illiterate 29.10.1991 Permanent Gen 3. Shiv Kumar s/o Lt. Pratap Singh Illiterate 08.09.1994 Permanent SC 4. Radhe Shyam s/o Lt. Sadhu Ram Maurya Illiterate 30.05.2012 Permanent OBC 5. Raju s/o Shri Banshi Lal Illiterate 12.07.1994 Permanent SC 6. Shahjad Ali s/o Naushad Ali Illiterate 01.07.2010 Permanent Gen 7. Punam w/o Lt. Raj Kumar Illiterate 21.09.2015 Permanent SC 8. Nirmala w/o Lt. Raju Illiterate 02.02.2022 Temporary SC A bare perusal of the aforementioned list shows the preferential treatment accorded to these individuals, despite their shorter service durations and no educational qualification. This exemplifies discriminatory behaviour and lack of uniformity in the respondent department's approach. Such disparity violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in law. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified. 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments 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. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that 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 this judgement have been reproduced below: "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (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 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (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." 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 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. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 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 evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 • Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled 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. 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 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 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 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”. 12. Therefore, the consideration at the hands of the respondents will happen in terms of what is held by the Apex Court in the aforequoted judgments and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1088 WP No. 106099 of 2023 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-H and the endorsement dated 03.07.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-J stand quashed. (iii) The respondent-Corporation shall reconsider the case of the petitioner strictly in consonance with law, and bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, within 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50