[2026:RJ-JP:7170] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3200/2020 Rama Shankar Joshi S/o Late Sh. Ganpat Lal Joshi, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Vyas Colony, Near Mehandipur Balaji, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Regional Manager, Region Office, Uco Bank, Arcade International, Iind Floor, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. 2. Branch Manager, Uco Bank, Branch Johari Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap Ms. Aradhna Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma with Mr. Kirti Lamba HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 11/02/2026 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this writ petition the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioner from 2006 in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Uma Devi may kindly be held to be illegal, unjustified and same may be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to regularise the service of the petitioner from the dates on which similar situated persons whose names mentioned in the award of the Labour Court dated 05.10.1991. It is further requested that Hon'bel Court may also direct the [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (2 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] respondents to pay minimum pay scale of the post Peon, IVth Class during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in respondent bank on 15.07.1985 and his services were terminated on 15.08.1987. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act and an award dated 05.10.1991 in I.T. No. 80/1989 was passed in favour of petitioner by Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. As a result, the petitioner was declared as continuous daily wager in employment of respondent bank. 3. The petitioner was reinstated on 27.02.1992 and was retrenched on the very same day. The petitioner has filed a writ petition to challenge retrenchment, but the same was disposed of on 15.09.2001 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) and a SLP was also filed, but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a claim before the Industrial Tribunal and an award dated 06.09.2005 was passed in favour of petitioner. The award dated 06.09.2005 was challenged by the respondents, but the writ petition, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) and a SLP filed by the respondents were dismissed. The petitioner was reinstated in service on 16.04.2018 and the petitioner has filed this petition for seeking declaration and regular pay. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, while placing reliance upon order dated 09.01.2013 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1551/2012 UCO Bank and [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (3 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] Anr. Vs. Narendra Kumar Sharma, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, has submitted that identically placed Narendra Kumar Sharma was regularized by the respondent bank but petitioner was not regularized. He further submitted that the order dated 09.01.2013 is applicable upon the facts of the case. He also referred to unfair labour practices adopted by the respondents and submitted that the petitioner was forced to file legal proceedings since 1987 and still the petitioner is in the court of justice to demand justice. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Dharam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of UP and Anr., order dated 19.08.2025; 2025 INSC 998 and Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors.:2024 INSC 1034. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Anupam Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal and others in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 29533/2025, and submitted that regularisation of contractual employee cannot be claimed as a matter of right under statutory or constitutional provisions. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 and submitted that public employment is governed under the constitutional scheme and any appointment dehors the rules is not permissible. He further submitted that if any employee is continued in service under the orders of tribunal or the court, then it does not give any right for regularisation. He further placed reliance upon order dated [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (4 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] 07.08.2015 in DB SAW No. 593/2015, Shiv Prasad (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs. UCO Bank and others, and submitted that any person not appointed by adopting the due process cannot claim regularisation. He further submitted that case of present petitioner cannot be compared to Narendra Kumar Sharma (supra). 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material placed on record including the judgments as referred by both the parties. 7. The facts clearly indicate that the petitioner was initially appointed on 15.07.1985 and was terminated with effect from 15.08.1987. The discontinuation or termination was termed as illegal by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide award dated 05.10.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated but immediately on challenge retrenched and an award dated 06.09.2005 was passed in favour of the present petitioner by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in Reference No. L-12012/89/2003 (IR)(B-II). 8. A Division Bench of this Court, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 441/2017 decided on 22.03.2018 considered award dated 06.09.2005, and only thereafter observed that the petitioner was reinstated in service on 16.04.2018. The material available on record clearly indicates that from the order dated 05.10.1991 till 22.03.2018, the services of the petitioner were treated as continuous and, therefore, from 1985 till date, the length of service of the petitioner is more than 40 years. [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (5 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] 9. The order dated 22.03.2018 in D.B. SAW No.441/2017 is reproduced as under: The prayer is to allow lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement. We are not inclined to accept it for the reason that the workman had not worked for 1 or 2 years but had worked for good 7 years. In such circumstances, the award of compensation instead of reinstatement, cannot be said to be justified. It is not a case where workman worked fer few months. Learned counsel for the non-appellant is fair to submit that if with those who were engaged with him is given with a direction for consideration of his case for grant of pay at par reinstatement within a period of one month, he is willing to forego back wages, but the bank should not withdraw the last pay drawn under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that issue may be considered by this Court and while doing so, if the prayer of the workman is accepted then going beyond the terms of reference, appropriate direction may be given. In view of aforesaid, we have considered the matter and fine the offer of the non-appellant workman to be reasonable. Accordingly, interference in award of back, wages is made. The appellant-Bank would reinstate the non-appellant-workman within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case of failure in making compliance, the matter would be reviewed to allow full back wages also, it is further [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (6 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] directed to the appellant to fix the pay of the non-appellant at par with those appointed with him. It would be done after the reinstatement and in lieu of the aforesaid, the bank would not require to pay the back wages of the intervening period oil one month from the date of production of copy of this order. The appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid. The award of learned Labour Court and order of learned Single Judge are modified to that extent. 10. The petitioner has also submitted representations seeking regularisation of his services. In the case of Anupam Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (supra), the issue pertained to Additional Public Prosecutors and the regularisation of such Public Prosecutors was found to be contrary to the structured procedure under the Cr.P.C. and relevant rules. Thus, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable in the instant case. 11. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and held that daily wagers form a class by themselves and cannot claim parity with those regularly recruited on the basis of relevant rules. Thus, a daily wager cannot be made permanent in employment as a matter of right. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the Union of India and the State Governments and their instrumentalities to take [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (7 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] steps to regularise services as a one-time measure, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. 12. In the case of Shiv Prasad vs. UCO Bank (supra), the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and noted that the learned Single Judge had held that a person who has completed 24 years of service is not entitled to regularisation. 13. In the case of UCO Bank vs. Narendra Kumar Sharma (supra), the workman was initially engaged on 18.01.1985 as a casual labour and after his termination on 09.04.1987, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court/Tribunal and an award was passed on 18.08.1994. The workman was reinstated on 29.10.1994 and joined on 02.11.1994 but again retrenced on 02.11.1994. A reference was made and an award dated 27.12.1999 was passed in favour of the workman, which was upheld by this Court on 21.03.2007 and pursuant to order, Narendra Kumar Sharma was reinstated, but he was again retrenched on 21.08.2007. 14. The retrenchment was again challenged by Narendra Kumar by filing writ petition No.6703/2007 and same was allowed. The bank has challenged the order passed in writ petition by filing DB SAW No.1551/2012 which was dismissed with certain modifications on 09.01.2013. The modification is as under: "After hearing counsel for the parties, we do not find any error being committed by the learned Single Judge under order impugned which may require interference but at the same time we modify the judgment impugned to the extent shall [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (8 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] now take steps regarding regularization of the respondent-that the employer workman and may pass necessary orders at least from the date person junior to him stood regularized. Necessary Compliance be madewithin three months. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of." 15. The material on record clearly indicated that case of petitioner is identical as that of Narendra Kumar Sharma, as petitioner was given similar treatment by the Bank official. 16. The Court further observed that the practice adopted by UCO Bank in repeatedly terminating or retrenching workmen clearly amounts to unfair labour practice, which cannot be approved. If a person is engaged even on daily wages or contractual basis, there must be a contract between employer and employee and the engagement must be governed by defined terms and conditions. If posts are available for regularisation, the employer should engage persons only for short-term or fixed-term employment with clarity that such engagement will not continue beyond the stipulated period. At the same time, the employer must ensure that work of perennial nature is not taken through temporary arrangements. 17. It is a settled proposition that one set of employees cannot be replaced by another set of employees, whether contractual or otherwise. A contractual employee can be replaced only by a regularly selected employee and not by another contractual employee. Similarly, if an identically placed person has been regularised even pursuant to court [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (9 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] orders, another person in similar circumstances would also be entitled to claim similar benefit. 18. After considering the judgments in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), Jaggo vs. Union of India (supra), and Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Badrilal vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (DB SAW No. 937/2022 decided on 26.08.2025) observed as under: "We need not further delve on the said issue at our level after the pronouncement of the Apex Court and conclude that the action of the respondents deserves to be deprecated. The appellant who has attained superannuation would be entitled to be considered as regularized on the post on completion of 10 years of service. His pay and allowances shall accordingly be calculated and actualarrears of salary after deducting daily wages amount paid to him shall be released within the period of three months. The respondents shall also make pay fixation including the benefits of ACP applicable on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service and pay the arrears. The pension shall also be calculated and accordingly released along with all other retiral benefits after deducting the benefits which have been released to the appellant which may include gratuity amount. The entire exercise shall be conducted within a period of three months. The appellant would also be entitled to receive interest on the arrears @ 6% per annum. So far as pension and retiral benefits are concerned." 19. Having considered aforesaid, the objection and the grounds raised by the respondents are not sufficient to deny the [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (10 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] claim of the petitioner for regularisation. The action of the respondents clearly demonstrated that the petitioner was not only harassed but was subjected to run from pillar to post to secure his livelihood. 20. The respondent bank, being a public sector undertaking, cannot run on whims and fancies of any individual thus the management has to adopt fair and transparent procedure while dealing with any workman. 21. Since the petitioner demonstrated that he was initially engaged on 15.07.1985 and his services were illegally terminated, discontinued and retrenched on multiple occasions. The termination, discontinuation and retrenchment was already delcared illegal and against the law, therefore the petitioner is working in respondent bank as a daily wager or on temporary basis or contractul basis since 15.07.1985. Even at the time of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra), the petitioner had rendered more than ten years of service. Further, the award dated 06.09.2005 had already been passed in his favour. 22. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularisation on the same terms and conditions as laid down by the Division Bench in UCO Bank & Another vs. Narendra Kumar Sharma (supra). 23. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the respondents are directed to consider regularization of petitioner and take immediate steps regarding regularisation of the petitioner-workman and to pass necessary orders at least from the date when a person [2026:RJ-JP:7170] (11 of 11) [CW-3200/2020] junior to him was regularised. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of regularisation. Necessary compliance is directed to be made within a period of four months, from date of receipt of copy of order. 24. The writ petition and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood disposed of accordingly. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /12