- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.39916 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT PRATHIMA BHAT K., W/O HARISH M.G. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT MAMBADY HOUSE, KAIKUNJE EAST POST, JODUMARGA BANTWAL TALUK D K DISTRICT - 574 219. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI.SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOM BHAVAN KAVOOR CROSS ROAD, BEJAI MANGALURU – 575 001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (ADMIN & HR) MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOM BHAVAN, KAVOOR CROSS ROAD BEJAI, MANGALURU – 575 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMIN) MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE, MESCOM BHAVAN, KAVOOR CROSS ROAD BEJAI, MANGALURU – 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE BOARD RESOLUTION Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 DATED 29.06.2018 NO. IN AGENDA ITEM NO.BODM70/23, OFFICE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.07.2018 VIDE ANNEXURES-A, A1 AND A2 RESPECTIVELY AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF RESPONDENTS WITH REGARD TO THE SAID POST AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “ i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or Order in Quashing the Board resolution dated 29.06.2018 No. in Agenda item No.BODM70/23, Office Order dated 31.07.2018 No. Pravya(Aa&Masom)/Sapravya(Aa)/le (Aa) sa-le (Aa)/Mam.Na/K-A106/2018-2019/4398-41 Endorsement dated 31.07.2018 No. Pravya (Aa)/Sapravya (Aa)/sa-le (Aa)/ Mam.Na/K-A 106/2018-2019/4392-397 at vide Annexure A,A1 and A2 respectively and all further proceedings of Respondents with regard to the said post. ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner as Assistant Law Officer with effect from 12.07.2012 i.e., the date of sanctioning of Time Scale along with all the allied Service benefits and other terminal benefits in accordance with the BESR AND Recruitment and Promotion Regulations including promotional opportunities on par with the permanent officers, in terms of Newspaper - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 Notification and Directions of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.25142/2017 vide at ANNEXURE-T. iii) Issue any other Writ, Order, Direction or Grant any other relief, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 10.09.2009, the respondents – MESCOM issued a News Paper Notification inviting applications for appointment of Assistant Law Officer to the respondents. The petitioner having submitted an application, attended the interview and was appointed to the post of Assistant Law Officer for a period of one year from 05.07.2010 and entered into an Agreement dated 12.07.2010 with the respondents, in pursuance of which, she gave up her independent practice as a lawyer / advocate. The service of the petitioner was extended from time to time on yearly basis by the respondents from 2011 to 2017 and the petitioner was provided with time scale applicable to an Assistant Executive Engineer and the contract was extended on account of the satisfactory performance of the petitioner. The details of the sanctioned post published from 2010 to 2017 showed the existence of one sanctioned post, against which, the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 was working with the respondents. Meanwhile, the petitioner made a repeated representations from 2012 till 2017 seeking grant / according of permanency benefits in her favour as per the aforesaid news paper Notification dated 29.10.2009. since the said representations were not considered by the respondents, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.1425/2017 which was disposed of vide final order dated 23.04.2017 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case by keeping in mind the length of service put in by her as Assistant Law Officer at MESCOM. In pursuance of the said directions issued by this Court, the respondents conducted a Board Meeting on 29.06.2018 resolving to reject the representation of the petitioner and to terminate her from service in pursuance of which, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 terminating the services of the petitioner and issued the impugned Endorsement dated 31.07.2018 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. The respondents have filed their statement of objections and have contested the petition interalia contending that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 4. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that having specifically stated in the paper notification dated 29.10.2009, in pursuance of which, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Law Officer that in the event, the petitioner renders satisfactory service, she would be entitled for permanency benefits coupled with the fact that the petitioner was continued in service upto 2018 and extended the timescale of the Assistant Executive Engineer, the respondents were not entitled to reject the claim for permanency benefits sought for by the petitioner who had rendered unblemished service for her entire tenure and as such, the impugned Resolution, Order and Endorsement deserve to be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant permanency in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents adopted the KEB Regulations only w.e.f. 04.09.2012 which would not apply to the petitioner, who was appointed in the year 2009 and the impugned Resolution and Order rejecting the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 claim of the petitioner based on the aforesaid Regulations is erroneous and deserve to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments:- i) P.Rajesh and Ors vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Ors., MANU/KA/4494/2015; ii) Chander Mohan Negi vs. State of H.P., - (2020) 5 SCC 372; iii) Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand, - (2018) 8 SCC 238; iv) New Marine Coal Co. (Bengal) Private Ltd., vs. Union of India - (1964) 2 SCR 859; v) Food Corporation of India vs. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries - (1993) 2 SCC 71; vi) B.L.Sreedhar vs. K.M. Munireddy - (2003) 2 SCC 355; vii) Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. V. Registrar, cooperative societies & Ors. - 2022 4 SCC 363; viii) P. Mahenderan & Ors. V. State of Karnataka & Ors. - (1990) 1 SCC 411; ix) Maitreyee Chakraborty v. Tripura University & Ors. - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2143; x) Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. V. High Court of Kerala & Ors. -(2024) 3 SCC 799; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 xi) State of Bihar & Ors. V. Shyama Nandan Mishra - 2022 SCC OnLine SC 554; xii) Surya Narain Yadav & Ors. V. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. - (1985) 3 SCC 38; xiii) Anil Joshi & Ors. V. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - (2015) 12 SCC 669; xiv) Vinod Kumar & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. - (2024) 9 SCC 327; xv) Pawan Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others – 2026 SCC OnLine SC 200; (xvi) Jaggo vs. Union of India and others – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; (xvii) State of Bihar and others vs. Kripa Nand Singh and Another – (2014) 14 SCC 375. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:- i) Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors - AIR 2006 SC 1806; ii) State of UP Vs. Rekha Rani - AIR 2011 SC 1893; iii) Ramachandrappa B.D Vs. State of Karnataka - MANU/KA/2246/2017; iv) Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Paramajeet Singh - AIR 2019 SC 2610. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 29.10.2009, the respondents issued the following Notification vide Annexure-B inviting applications for appointment of Assistant Law Officer as hereunder:- “ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ PÀA¥À¤ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÁéªÀÄåPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖzÉ. DqÀ½vÀ PÀbÉÃj, ¥ÁgÀqɪÀiï, ¥ÁZÁ, J.©.±ÉnÖ ªÀÈvÀÛ, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 575 001. ªÀÄ.«.¸À.PÀA., PÁ¥ÉÆÃðgÉõÀ£ï PÀbÉÃj, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°èUÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw §UÉÎ CºÀð C¨sÀåyðUÀ½AzÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DºÁ餸À¯ÁVzÉ. C. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj (Asst. Law Officer)-1 ºÀÄzÉÝ. ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀ: PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ/ «gÀÄzÀÝ EgÀĪÀ J¯Áè ªÁådåUÀ¼À CzÀgÀ®Æè «±ÉõÀªÁV UÁæºÀPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÁådåUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁ°PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ PÁAiÀÄðPÁjAiÀiÁV £ÀqɹPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ºÉÆuÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀ. PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðj E¯ÁSÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀ®èzÉ, PÁ£ÀƤUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ C£ÀĸÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. PÁAiÀÄð¤ÃwAiÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÁjUÉƽ¸ÀÄ«PÉAiÀÄ°è CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸À®ºÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. F ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁzÀ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 ¥ÀÆuÁðªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¨ÉÃgÉqÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ PÀ¸ÀħÄ/PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀ®Ä/ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ CºÀðvÉ: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdåzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ «±Àé «zÁ央AiÀÄ¢AzÀ PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉðAiÀÄ°è GwÛÃtðgÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ/¸É±À£ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¹«¯ï ºÁUÀÆ ¯Éçgï «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À°è ªÀQîgÁV PÀ¤µÀÖ LzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. PÀA¥ÀÆålgï §UÉÎ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. UÀjµÀÖ ªÀAiÉÆëÄw: ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.09.2009 PÉÌ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ «ÄÃjgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ. 1. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀUÀðPÉÌ 35 ªÀµÀð 2. ¥ÀæªÀUÀð 2(J), 2(©0, 3(J), 3(©0 ªÀUÀðPÉÌ 38 ªÀµÀð 3. ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw/¥ÀAUÀqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæªÀUÀð 1PÉÌ 40 ªÀµÀð PÀÆærüÃPÀÈvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À: ªÀiÁ¹PÀ 25,000/- ( J¯Áè ¨sÀvÉå ¸ÉÃj) UÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ PÁ¯ÁªÀ¢ü: DgÀA¨sÀzÀ°è 1 ªÀµÀð ªÀiÁvÀæ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹ UÀÄwÛUÉ ¸ÉêÁ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À 1 ªÀµÀðUÀ½UÉ «¸ÀÛj¸À¯ÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À vÀȦÛPÀgÀ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÉ, CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï ( «) CxÀªÁ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è ( ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃt gÀÆ. 9470-275-9745-330-11725- 385-13265-440-15025-495-20470) EvÀgÉ ¨sÀvÉåUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ SÁAiÀÄA DUÀĪÀ CºÀðvÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.” 9. As can be seen from the aforesaid Notification, the respondents have specifically stated that apart from the fact that the petitioner would have to give up her independent practice as an Advocate, her satisfactory performance would entitle her to being made permanent and regularized by the respondents. The petitioner having been appointed as Assistant Law Officer on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 contract basis, the same was extended on yearly basis upto 2017 and in view of her satisfactory performance, the petitioner was provided time scale / pay scale applicable to Assistant Executive Engineer as can be seen from the documents at Annexures-E, G, H, J, L and N produced by the petitioner along with the petition. It is therefore clear that the respondents have themselves acquiesced to the fact that the performance of the petitioner was satisfactory and her time scale / pay scale was extended / increased to that of Assistant Executive Engineer. The details of sanctioned post published from 2010 to 2017, show the existence of one sanctioned post and the petitioner working against the said sanctioned post. As can be seen from Annexure-Q series (colly) produced by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents clearly committed an error in rejecting the request for grant of permanency benefits in favour of the petitioner as an Assistant Law Officer by passing the impugned Resolution and impugned order, which deserve to be quashed. 10. A perusal of the impugned Resolution and order will indicate that the respondents has stated that it was impermissible - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 to grant permanency benefits in favour of the petitioner as Assistant Law Officer which post can be filled up only by way of deputation as per the KEB cadre and recruitment Rules adopted by the respondents. In this context, the respondents committed an error in placing reliance upon the said rules which were adopted by them only on 04.09.2012, thereby indicating that the same would evidently be prospective and not retrospective and consequently, would not apply to the petitioner, who was appointed in the year 2009-10 and as such, no reliance could have been placed upon the said Rules by the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner. 11. As stated supra, the petitioner having worked for more than 16 years as on today from the date of her initial appointment in 2009-10, pursuant to the news paper notification dated 29.10.2009, which clearly stipulated that the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of permanency benefits since her performance had undisputedly been satisfactory and she was extended the benefit of time scale / pay scale of Assistant Executive Engineer, the respondents were estopped from refusing to regularize the services of the petitioner and grant her permanency benefits and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 consequently, the impugned Resolution, order and endorsement deserve to be quashed. 12. In Chandan Mohan Negi’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “ 11. At the outset, it is to be noted that the schemes in question were notified in the years 2001 and 2003 under which appointments were made with regard to Primary Assistant Teachers and Teachers in other categories. At the relevant point of time, nobody has questioned either the schemes or the appointments. It is the specific case of the respondent State that such appointments have not affected the writ petitioners and the Department was not in a position to leave the schools, Teachers deficient for long since it would have affected the studies of the students very badly. Therefore, it was the case of the State that Teachers had been appointed under various schemes at that point of time and such appointments have been made up to the year 2007 and have no impact on the appellants since they have completed their two-year JBT training in the year 2011. As is evident from the order [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] under appeal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant-writ petitioners have not even chosen to file rejoinder and the stand taken by the State thus has remained uncontroverted. Further, it is also to be noted that when such appointments were made during the years 2001 and 2003 the writ petitions came to be filed in the years 2012 and 2013. As - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 the writ petitioners have claimed interest for their appointment, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] that such petitions cannot be considered as the public interest litigation. Such a writ petition which was filed by the petitioners who came to be qualified only in the year 2011 are not entitled for any relief on the ground of unexplained laches and inordinate delay of about more than 10 years in approaching the court for questioning the appointments. Though relief was sought against the State to deny the benefit of regularisation to the appointed Teachers, they were not even impleaded as party respondents. An association was impleaded as third respondent but without furnishing any material to show that at least majority of appointees are members of such association. So far as Primary Assistant Teachers Scheme of 2003, which was the subject-matter of letters patent appeal arising out of CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A filed by Chander Mohan Negi and others, is concerned, the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2813 of 2017 except Appellants 1, 2 and 4 have withdrawn [Chander Mohan Negi v. State of H.P., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 459] the appeal and Appellants 1 and 4 are already appointed as JBTs. Insofar as the only appellant viz. Appellant 2, Rajiv Chauhan is concerned, it is stated that he is qualified and there are vacant posts and he can be considered if he applies to any of the existing vacancies. So far as the Primary Assistant Teacher Scheme is concerned, same was notified as early as on 27-8-2003. As is evident from - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 the Scheme itself, the object of the Scheme appears to be to compulsorily enrol children in schools for elementary and primary education in the remote areas to achieve the goals as set by the Government while enacting the Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997 with a view to achieve the target of 100% enrolment to children. As per the Scheme, the eligibility was 10+2 from a recognised Board/University and the candidates with higher qualifications were also eligible and candidates with professional qualifications were to be preferred. As per the regular Recruitment Rules the requisite qualification for the post of JBT Teacher during the relevant time was 10+2 with 50% marks and JBT certificate. As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State that initially though 3500 odd Teachers were appointed, as of now there are only a total of 3294 Teachers working in this category and out of this about 1866 had the qualification of 10+2 with more than 50% marks at the relevant point of engagement. Out of the balance, 1015 had 10+2 with less than 50% marks, but they had higher qualification such as BA/MA/MSc or BEd, etc. Further, it is also brought to our notice that out of all the candidates, 3294 candidates who are presently working have acquired the professional qualification of diploma in elementary education or have undergone Professional Development Programme for Elementary Teachers. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that when the appointees appointed under the scheme have completed more than almost 15 years of service now and also have acquired the professional - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 qualifications, they cannot be denied regularisation at this point of time. As the appointments were made as per the schemes notified by the Government such appointments cannot be treated as illegal, if at all they can be considered irregular. When it is the plea of the State that in view of the hard topography/tribal areas in the State, large number of vacancies were there even in single teacher schools and to achieve the object of the Himachal Pradesh Primary Education Act, 1997 such steps were taken, there is no reason to disbelieve the same, more so, in absence of any affidavit by way of rejoinder by the writ petitioners before the High Court controverting the allegations in the reply filed on behalf of the State. 12. Even with regard to the Para Teachers Policy under which various category of Teachers were appointed in the year 2003 pursuant to policy notified on 17-9-2003 it is clear from the record placed before this Court that all the persons who were recruited as Para Teachers were fully qualified as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules i.e. the Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class III (School and Inspection Cadre) Service Rules, 1973. In view of the stand of the State that such policy was necessitated due to large number of vacant posts which have arisen year after year and which could not be filled since the State Selection Subordinate Board, Hamirpur, which was responsible for the selection of Teachers had come under a cloud and the selection process had come to a halt, such appointments cannot be rendered as illegal. Such aspect is also evident from the policy itself. Even in other category of - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 the Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teacher Association Rules, all Teachers appointed under the Scheme fulfil the educational qualifications prescribed in the Rules. For such kind of Teachers, the Cabinet has taken decision to take over the Teachers on contract basis after completion of eight years of service which period was later reduced to seven years. It is also brought to our notice during the course of arguments that out of the total 6799 Teachers, 5017 Teachers were already taken over on contract basis by the State Government and only 1782 could not be taken over in view of the interim orders passed by this Court. 13. It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government, there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed Teachers under the various schemes, benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code, 1985. The judgments relied on by learned counsel Shri Prashant Bhushan also would not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein for the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 reason that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need of framing such policies to meet the immediate requirement to fill up single teacher schools which were vacant for a very long time, having regard to topographical conditions, which is not even controverted by way of any rejoinder before the High Court. In such view of the matter, taking the totality of peculiar circumstances of these cases, we are of the view that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are working for the meagre salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make backdoor entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission. Further it is also to be noted that though such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned such policies and appointments up to 2012 and 2013. The writ petition i.e. CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petition, there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the averments of the State as stated in the reply-affidavit. Having regard to the nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to material placed before this Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 5944] by the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] of the High Court. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, all these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.” 13. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “ 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi as well as the subsequent decision of this Court explaining Umadevi, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in taking an impractical view of the directions in Umadevi (3) as well as its consideration in Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, 5. The decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), was intended to put a full stop to the somewhat pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally appointing daily- wage workers and continuing with them indefinitely. In fact, in para 49 of the Report, it was pointed out that the rule of law requires appointments to be made in a constitutional manner and the State cannot be permitted to perpetuate an irregularity in the matter of public employment which would adversely affect those who could be employed in terms of the constitutional scheme. It is for this reason that the concept of a one-time measure and a cut-off date was introduced in the hope and expectation that the State would - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 cease and desist from making irregular or illegal appointments and instead make appointments on a regular basis. 6. The concept of a one-time measure was further explained in Kesari in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Report which read as follows: (SCC pp. 250-51, paras 9-11) “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services. 10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3),, cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), , but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3),I s twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily- wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10- 4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure.” 7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid. 8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3, is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15- 11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench. 9. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise — the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc. 11. The impugned judgment and passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. 12. We may add that that it would be worthwhile for the State of Jharkhand to henceforth consider making regular appointments only and dropping the idea of making irregular appointments so as to short circuit the process of regular appointments.” 14. In P.Rajesh’s case supra, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:- 29. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The question that arises for my consideration is whether the services of the petitioners are to be regularized. For examining this question, the following facts and circumstances are of utmost importance: (i) The services of the similarly appointed contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers have come to be regularized. It is also not in dispute that - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 the appointments of 2005 and 2006 batch of Engineers themselves were on 6.7.2006 and 23.11.2006. The appointments of contract engineers of both the batches are thus after 10.4.2006, the date of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra). It is trite that the similarly placed persons cannot be treated dissimilarly. Some of the Engineers of KPTCL had challenged the decision to regularize the services of the earlier batches of contract engineers by filing W.P. No. 7425/2007. One ground specifically raised by the petitioners in the said case was that the resolution for regularizing the services is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). The said contention is negatived. The unsuccessful petitioners therein took up the matter to the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court but without any rate of success. (ii) The petitioners are not the back-door entrants. They have taken part in the recruitment process which was lawfully initiated. It is not that they are appointed arbitrarily to the exclusion of the other aspiring, eligible candidates. The KPTCL issued the notification calling for application for filing up the posts in question, held the written test and viva-voce also. It has also not in dispute that the petitioners are appointed against the sanctioned vacancies. All these factors clearly show that they were appointed - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 in accordance with the constitutional scheme for public appointments. (iii) No provision of KPTCL Service Regulations or Cadre and Recruitments Rules is pointed out to me to show that the prior approval of the Government is necessary for the regularization of the services of its contract employees. It is also worthwhile to notice that for regularizing the services of the earlier three batches of the contract employees, neither the KPTCL sought the approval of the Government nor the Government subsequently raised any objection to the said regularization. (iv) As is evident from the Government's letter, dated 14.2.2007, the option/clearance/permission is already granted to the KPTCL to consider the issue of recruiting the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on permanent basis instead of contract basis if their services are required on permanent basis. The general clearance accorded by the Government cannot be restricted only to one or two rounds of recruitments, which are stated to have been taken immediately after the issuance of the letter, dated 14.2.2007. As the said letter does not restrict or specify the period of its operation, it has to be taken that it would continue to be in force until such time that it is withdrawn. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the services of the petitioners are required. In this regard, the relevant proceedings may be seen. The proceedings of the meeting of the - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 Board of Directors of KPTCL held on 29.12.2010, inter alia, read as follows: "The details were perused. It was noted that the above engineers have completed 3 years of service and have hand hands on experience in the utility. KPTCL and ESCOMs have spent substantially on their salaries over the last three years. It is difficult to get experienced hands in the power sector since such experience are rarely available. Further based on the approval from Government of Karnataka, the above Engineers have been recruited duly following all the procedures and reservation policies of Government. Retention of such experienced engineers would become difficult if they are not considered for regulation." (v) The perusal of the afore-extracted portions of the proceedings clearly indicate that the petitioners' services are required. The observation of the Government in its letter, dated 14.2.2007 that the KPTCL may consider the issue of recruiting the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on permanent basis instead of contract basis, if they are required on permanent basis has to be seen in conjunction with the assessment of the Board of Directors of KPTCL. 30. Now let me examine the applicability of the authorities, cited by either side, for the factual matrix of these cases. The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra) is a direction to resort to the process of regular recruitment, as following any other course would be disastrous in as much as it would deprive the security of tenure, right of equality conferred on civil servants under the - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 constitutional scheme. As clarified by the Apex Court and other High Courts subsequently, the decision in Uma Devi's case (supra) lays down the principle that the services of the back-door entrants cannot be regularized. It does not in any way come in the way of regularizing the services of the employees, who are appointed against the sanctioned vacancies, where publicity is given to the process of making the appointment, applications are called for, written test and viva voce are held, the candidates' merit is determined and their suitability is ascertained. 31. In the case of PWD Employees Union (supra), the Apex Court has expressed the considered view that if the process of recruitment is consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the employees are entitled to all the benefits of service including the regularization of service. It has further held that the decision in Uma Devi's case has no application for the daily wage employees who are engaged in jobs which are perennial in nature and whose initial appointments are not illegal and irregular. 32. In Nihal Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the judgment in Uma Devi's case cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities. Further, it has come down heavily on the public sector banks for enjoying the cheap labour over a period of decades. 33. When the initial appointment of the petitioners cannot be categorized as irregular or illegal, the relief of the regularization of their services cannot be denied to them. In a more or less similar case but falling under the contempt - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 jurisdiction, the Apex Court has directed the regularization of services of 74 employees, as the services of the similarly placed 371 employees were regularized. 34. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra) has directed the Maharashtra State Government to confer permanency in service on the employees, who were appointed on contractual basis, as they were through the selection process conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. 35. The facts of the cases on hand and of Arulmozhi Iniarasu (supra) are entirely different. In Arulmozhi Iniarasu case (supra), the workmen were engaged as part-time contingent casual labourers purely on temporary basis. They were engaged on the basis of the need of the office for which they were paid on hourly basis. That is why they were held as not eligible for the regularization of their services. 36. The impugned communication, dated 15.11.2012 turning down the KPTCL'S request for the regularization of services is not sustainable for one simple reason. It does not refer to, much less consider the regularization of the earlier three batches of contract employees. It is therefore difficult to hold that the Government has taken an informed or well-considered decision. Although the impugned communication issued by the Government is not supportable and sustainable, I do not find the need to quash it in view of the submission made on behalf of the - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 Government that it is open to KPTCL to take its own decision in the matter of regularization of its employees. 37. In the result, I allow these petitions by holding that the petitioners are entitled to the regularization of their services. The KPTCL is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 29.12.2010, the date of passing the resolution in that regard and on the same terms on which the services of the contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers of 2003, 2005 and 2006 batches were regularized. The KPTCL shall comply with these directions within three months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order. No order as to costs.” 15. In Jaggo’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- 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 - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 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.,' 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 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 - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 even it 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 - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 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 judgement 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 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 - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 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: o 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. o 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. o Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 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. o 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. o 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 sanctioned posts and had served - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 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. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits. 29. There shall be no order as to costs. Result of the case: Appeals allowed.” 16. In the instant case, as stated supra, in the light of the material on record and the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned Resolution at Annexure-A dated 29.06.2018, impugned order at Annexure-A1 dated 31.07.2018 and impugned Endorsement at Annexure-A2 dated 31.07.2018 deserve to be quashed by allowing the present petition and by issuing certain directions to the respondents. - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13895 WP No. 39916 of 2018 17. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents are concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbefore, coupled with the fact that the said decisions would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and as such, the same are not elaborately dealt with for the purpose of the present order. 18. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Resolution at Annexure-A dated 29.06.2018, impugned order at Annexure-A1 dated 31.07.2018 and impugned Endorsement at Annexure-A2 dated 31.07.2018 passed / issued by the respondents are hereby quashed. (iii) Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner and grant permanency benefits together with all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV/SRL