1 902-wp-12210-2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 WRIT PETITION NO. 12210 OF 2022 Tayabkhan Gulabkhan Pathan And Others VERSUS The Union Of India Through The Secretary Revenue And Others ... Mr. Sharma Alok Madangopal, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for Respondent/ Union Mr. Dwarkadas S. Ladda a/w. Mr. Pratik P. Kothari, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. ... CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 19, 2025 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed for the following main reliefs :- “A)This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed. B) That the order bearing no. 1/2022 passed by Commissioner CGST and CX Aurangabad may kindly be quashed and set aside. C) That the services of the petitioners may be regularized by extending the scheme "Part Time Casual Labourer Regularization Scheme of CBIC-2020" D) By issue of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature, the respondents no.1 to 4 may kindly be directed to continue to pay the wages @ 1/30th of the pay by holding that the petitioners continue to work as the employees of the Department as multi-tasking staff by setting aside the order no. 1/2022 dt. January 2022 and continue their services till the age of retirement on Superannuation.” 3. The petitioners claimed to have been serving as casual laborers with the Department of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. The details of the Narwade/ 2025:BHC-AUG:37690-DB 2 902-wp-12210-2022.odt services rendered by the petitioners is given in the tabular format below:- Sr. No. Name Date from which engaged as part time casual labourer Whether 10 years continuous engagement completed as on 19.07.2011 Educati onal Qualific ation Whether possessin g education al and other qualificati on Age on the date of initial engagement by the department Whether age eligibility criteria is as per the requiremen t prescribed for the post 1. T. G. Pathan 04.10.199 4 Yes 10th Std (fail) No 19 Yrs 2 M Yes 2. Y. H. Pathan 20.01.199 5 Yes 04th Std. No 26 Yrs 7 M Yes 3. M. R. Jogdand 25.06.199 6 Yes 10th Std (fail) No 26 Yrs 5 M Yes 4. Atik Shaikh 01.02.199 9 Yes 10th Std (fail) No 18 Yrs 10 M Yes 5. A. N. Salvi 27.12.199 5 Yes 10th Std (fail) No 18 Yrs 9 M Yes 6. V. N. Wankhede 27.12.199 5 Yes 9th Std. No 21 Yrs. 3 M Yes 4. The petitioners had earlier approached Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application No.528 of 2017. The said application was allowed by the CAT in terms of the following order :- " If there is any scheme / policy formulated by the respondents regarding regularization of Part-Time Casual Labours and the applicants are eligible and suitable in terms of such scheme, then the respondents shall consider the applicants for regularization or for any other benefits in consonance with such scheme/ policy within three months from the date of receipt of this order” 5. Thereafter the department took up the issue to consider in terms of the orders passed by the CAT. The department, however, by it Order No.1/2022 observed thus : “18. I further observe that, all the Applicants were outsourced through contractor from 01.09.2004. Consequently, I find that no employer/employee relationship existed between the CBIC and those outsourced labourers, nor such category of labourers were paid directly by the Department. They are for all purpose, employee of the outsource agency and receiving their wages from such outsourced agency and Narwade/ 3 902-wp-12210-2022.odt therefore, the government has no liability towards such outsourced labourers. 19. In view of the above discussions and finding, I hold that, since no such Scheme to regularize the services of the said 10 applicants is in existence at present, the Applicants 1 to 10 named above in the present matter are not eligible for granting temporary status and regularization as sought by them.” 6. The Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 2025 SC 296 observed thus : “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 judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230, 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 judgment 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 the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the Narwade/ 4 902-wp-12210-2022.odt 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. 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 Declaration 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 judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation 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 Narwade/ 5 902-wp-12210-2022.odt 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 long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often 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, Narwade/ 6 902-wp-12210-2022.odt 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 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.” 7. The judgement in Jaggo (supra) has been relied on by the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh And Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another by observing as under :- 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned Narwade/ 7 902-wp-12210-2022.odt strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 8. Since the petitioners have been rendering their services from 1995 till date and may be even without interruption they have been paltry paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as a consolidated pay. The same has been gradually increased to this much. This is nothing short of an exploitation of human labour. In view of the observation of the Apex Court in the aforesaid two judgments, we are allow the Writ Petition in terms of the following order :- ORDER i. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are hereby directed to absorb the petitioners on the post of Hawaldar (lowest in rank) with effect from the date of the filing of the present petition and pay them all the monetary benefits including salary attached thereto from the said date and continue to pay the same, until they are in service. Narwade/ 8 902-wp-12210-2022.odt ii. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a time frame of six months from today. [ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [R. G. AVACHAT, J.] Narwade/