[2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 371/2023 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10257/2019 Kanaram S/o Shri Goruram Meena, Aged About 44 Years, Presently Working As Chowkidar, Govt. Ambedkar Hostel, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, 22, Raj Bhawan Road, Ambedkar Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Assistant/ Deputy Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. The Assistant/ Deputy Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Karauli (Raj.) 5. The Assistant/ Deputy Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jhalawar (Raj.) 6. The Assistant/ Deputy Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Sikar (Raj.) 7. Smt. Indra Jatav W/o Shri Bhorulal D/o Shri Bhanta Jatav, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Working As Cook, Government Savitri Bai Phoole Hostel, Karauli (Raj.) 8. Maniram S/o Shri Mangal, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Working As Cook, Government Ambedkar Hostel, Karauli (Raj.) 9. Smt. Asha Koli W/o Shri Raju Koli, Aged About 39 Years, Presently Working As Cook, Government Ambedkar Hostel, Karauli (Raj.) 10. Smt. Raju Bai W/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Presently Working As Cook, Government Ambedkar Hostel, Bhilwari, District Jhalawar (Raj.) 11. Shyam Lal Meena S/o Shri Shankar Lal Meena, Aged About 49 Years, Presently Working As Chowkidar, Govt. [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (2 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] Ambedkar Hostel, Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Azad Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena with Ms. Anshul Ranga & Ms. Anjali Ranga HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Judgment Date of conclusion of Arguments : 19th December,2025 Date on which judgment was reserved : 19th December,2025 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full judgment Date of pronouncement : 27 th January, 2026 Per Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, J: 1. The present Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10257/2019, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant and proforma respondents nos. 7 to 11 (petitioners therein who’ll hereinafter be referred to as “writ petitioners”.) came to be dismissed. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the writ petitioners were appointed on the posts of Cook/Chowkidar in Government Ambedkar Hostel governed and supervised by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department. 2.1. A chart indicating the relevant particulars of the appellant and the proforma respondents has been incorporated in the writ petition itself. The same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (3 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] S.NO. NAME POST DATE OF JOINING PRESENT WORK PLACE 1. Kanaram Chowkidar 2011 Govt. Ambedkar Hostel, Jhalana Doongri Jaipur 2. Indra Jatav Cook 17.09.1999 Govt. Savitri Bai Phoole Hostel, Karauli 3. Maniram Koli Cook 01.09.1996 Govt. Ambedkar Hostel, Karauli 4. Asha Koli Cook 01.12.2005 Govt. Ambedkar Hostel, Karauli 5. Raju Bai Cook 01.07.2007 Govt. Ambedkar Hostel, Bhiwari, Distt. Jhalawar 6. Shyamlal Meena Chowkidar 04.07.2011 Govt. Ambedkar Hostel, Khandela, Distt. Sikar 2.2. The writ petitioners were appointed by the placement agency/mess committee in the government hostel run by the respondent Departments, as per the then prevailing requirement. Initially, they were appointed on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 135/- per day, which was later enhanced to Rs. 189/- per day, still falling short of the prescribed minimum wages, despite the fact that they were rendering round-the-clock services. 2.3. While working on the posts of Cook/Chowkidar, the writ petitioners made representations to the respondent Departments seeking grant of regular pay scales and regularization as Class-IV employees. However, the said requests were rejected on the ground that they were never engaged directly by the respondent Departments, but through a placement agency/mess committee. As per the relevant excerpts of the writ petition the hostel [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (4 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] Supervisor is said to have threatened the employees with termination in the event they approached any judicial forum, which ultimately compelled them to institute the present proceedings. 2.4. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that similarly situated employees, who had earlier approached this Court, were granted relief by orders dated 28.05.2014, 25.04.2017 and 16.01.2017 (Annexure-3, 4 and 5 to the writ petition), pursuant to which the respondent Departments issued the orders. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the appellants have been continuously working on the posts of Cook/Chowkidar under the respondent Departments for several years, yet they are being denied even the minimum wages applicable to the posts solely on the ground that their engagement was through a placement agency/mess committee. 3.1 It was further submitted that the number of posts of Cook in government hostels is directly linked to the strength of students. It was highlighted that there is a provision of 1 cook for every 25 students. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the writ petitioners are not working against sanctioned posts. 3.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the writ petitioners are discharging duties identical to those performed by regular Cooks/Chowkidars and that the involvement of a placement agency/mess committee only relieves the public exchequer from unnecessary financial burden. It was argued that, notwithstanding [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (5 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] such arrangement, the respondent Departments remains the Principal Employer and is therefore liable for all consequential obligations. 3.3. It was also contended that the mess committee is neither a corporate body nor a separate juridical entity. It is merely a body constituted by the State to manage the day-to-day affairs of the hostels. The mess committee functions under the control of the State and cannot be treated as an independent employer so as to absolve the respondent Departments of their statutory and constitutional responsibilities. 3.4. Learned counsel attached great weight upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and further contended that the writ petitioners have been performing duties of perennial nature which are essential for the functioning of the government hostels and thus their engagement cannot be treated as casual or temporary in nature, for an indefinitely long period. 4. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondent Departments submitted that the services of the writ petitioners were availed purely on a temporary basis through a placement agency/mess committee and that they were never directly appointed by the respondent Departments. And, this has been one of those contentions upon which counsel for respondents claimed that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief claimed. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. After analyzing the submissions advanced by the counsels for both parties it is apposite for this court to consider [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (6 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] the scope of the powers bestowed upon it in matters relating to regularization of employees having regard to the fact that discretion in public employment is structured by constitutional discipline and cannot be exercised to the detriment of equality in a constitutional democracy. The State does not function as a private employer, free to hire and discharge personnel at will; rather, it acts as a trustee of public power. Where ad hoc employees have, over successive years, shouldered the routine by keeping essential services moving, the law will not permit the state to consume their labour as if it were an endlessly renewable commodity and then disclaim responsibility by simply labeling them ‘contractual’. 5.1. In this backdrop, it is pertinent to examine the legal position governing regularization of temporary or contractual employees prior to the recent pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2025. The field was primarily governed by the landmark decision of Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it was held that mere continuation in service for a long period on a temporary, ad hoc, or contractual basis does not confer any vested or automatic right of regularization, particularly where the initial appointment was made dehors the constitutional scheme under Articles 14, 16, and 309 of the Constitution of India. 5.2. The decision in Uma Devi (Supra) also drew a distinction between ‘illegal appointments’ and ‘irregular appointments’. However, over time, the said judgment was increasingly invoked by public authorities as a blanket rationale to defeat claims for regularization by employees who had rendered prolonged and [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (7 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] uninterrupted service on the grounds of mere procedural irregularities in the process of recruitment. 5.3. In the course thereof, temporary or contractual employees were often terminated without notice, provided the termination was non-punitive and in accordance with contractual terms, which has been in complete negation of the spirit and scheme of the judgment in Uma Devi (Supra) which primarily intended to curb “backdoor entries”. 5.4. However, in the last few years the Supreme Court of India by a catena of authoritative pronouncements, inter-alia Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 9 SCC 327; Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC Online SC 221’ and Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, has pronounced with clarity that the labels such as casual, contractual, or ad hoc engagement doesn’t bar further adjudicatory inquiry and hence are no longer determinative. The Court has also emphasized that employees who have rendered continuous and untainted service and whose initial engagement was lawful are entitled to regularization. 5.5. Even prior to these recent judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sankar Mukherjee & Ors. vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 532, had strongly criticized the contract labor system as “archaic and exploitative”, thereby laying the foundation for a more equitable service jurisprudence concerning employees who have rendered long, uninterrupted, and satisfactory service. [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (8 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] 5.6. It merits emphasis that, even long before Uma Devi(Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 articulated a practical constitutional ethic that regular recruitment is the norm and ad hoc engagement may be compelled due to exigency but if the continuance becomes long, the authority must consider regularization where the employee is eligible/qualified and service record is satisfactory because security of tenure is to enable an employee to give his best and prolonged ad hocism creates arbitrariness and leads to unavoidable litigation. 5.7. Additionally, the State being a model employer is expected to act as a parent towards its employees, especially where the employees situated at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are concerned. In such circumstances, the state is expected to act promptly and to formulate and implement the regularization policy and not to allow its officials to remain in a state of inaction thereby compelling employees to approach the Court for enforcement of their legal rights. 5.8. Our ancient texts consistently enjoin upon the sovereign a duty to govern with justice, fairness, and balance. When the State engages individuals from the lowest rungs of society on a contractual basis in public service, it cannot be overlooked that such persons possess minimal bargaining power in matters relating to conditions of service. They are often susceptible to institutional bias, subjected to unequal treatment, and compelled to endure a form of step-motherly approach at the hands of the State and its instrumentalities. Modern governance is not to be [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (9 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] evaluated merely by the outcomes it produces; it must also account for the vast segment of employees who, day after day, contribute their labor and effort with utmost sincerity to sustain the functioning of public institutions. 5.9. Therefore, the legally sustainable position is that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right where the initial entry is illegal. But where the engagement is long, continuous and untainted against the sanctioned posts, the State is under a constitutional duty to undertake fair consideration to complete regularization exercise. And where the State’s defence rests solely on the ground that the concerned employee is labeled as ‘contractual’, while it continues to extract perennial work for years, Courts are entitled to pierce the veil of the form to test if the state action runs counter to constitutional ethics, and prevent the welfare state from becoming an architect of injustice. 5.10. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India do not merely regulate entry into public service but they also govern the entire life cycle of public employment of state. The constitutional promise is not exhausted once an employee crosses the threshold of appointment but it is a dynamic guarantee to safeguard against arbitrary action of the state including denial of legitimate consideration. 5.11. The controversy involved in the present appeal stands squarely covered by the following pronouncements, relevant portions of which have been extracted hereunder:- [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (10 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] 5.11.1. In Vinod Kumar & Ors.(Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reversing the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, held as under:- 5. “……..this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.” 6. “The application of the judgment in 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 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. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointment) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1966) SCC Online SC 23, R.N. Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (11 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 5.11.2. In Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra), the appellants therein were Safaiwalas and Khalasis engaged by the Central Water Commission on part-time ad hoc basis between 1993 and 1999 to perform essential housekeeping duties. Their claims for regularization were rejected by the Tribunal and the High Court on technical grounds, including absence of sanctioned posts and insufficient full-time service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, reversed the said findings, quashed the termination orders and directed reinstatement and regularization of the appellants therein with continuity of service, though without back wages. The relevant excerpts are reproduced: “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. [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (12 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] xxxxx 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. xxxxx 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., 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 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (13 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] 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. xxxxx 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 [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (14 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] 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 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.” 5.11.3. Similarly, in Shripal & Ors. vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (Supra), the workmen had been engaged as gardeners since 1998–1999 without formal appointment letters. Relying upon Jaggo (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed their reinstatement and regularization. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: “10. The Respondent Employer consistently labeled the Appellant Workmen as casual employees (or workers engaged through an unnamed contractor), yet there is no material proof of adherence to Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates a proper notice or wages in lieu thereof as well as retrenchment compensation. In this context, whether an individual is classified as regular or temporary is irrelevant as retrenchment obligations under the Act must be met in all cases attracting Section 6N. Any termination thus effected without statutory safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly. 11. Furthermore, the Employer’s stance that there was never a direct employer-employee relationship is wholly unsubstantiated. If, in fact, the AppellantWorkmen had been engaged solely through a contractor, the Employer [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (15 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] would have necessarily maintained some form of contract documentation, license copies, or invoices substantiating the contractor’s role in hiring, paying, and supervising these workers. However, no such documents have been placed on record. Additionally, the Employer has failed to establish that wages were ever paid by any entity other than its own Horticulture Department, which strongly indicates direct control and supervision over the Workmen’s day-to-day tasks is a hallmark of an employer- employee relationship. Had there been a legitimate third- party contractor, one would expect to see details such as tender notices, contract agreements, attendance records maintained by the contractor, or testimony from the contractor’s representatives. The absence of these crucial elements undermines the Employer’s claim of outsourced engagement. In fact, it appears that the Workmen were reporting directly to the Horticulture Department officials, receiving instructions on their duties, and drawing wages issued under the Municipality’s authority. This pattern of direct oversight and wage disbursement substantially negates the narrative that they were “contractor’s personnel.” Consequently, the discontinuation of their services carried out without compliance with statutory obligations pertaining to notice, retrenchment compensation, or approval under Section 6 E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, stands on precarious ground. The very foundation of the Employer’s defense (i.e., lack of an employer- employee relationship) is not supported by any credible or contemporaneous evidence.” 5.11.4. Carrying forward the same principles, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Supra) observed that when public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The relevant paras of Dharam Singh (Supra) have been reproduced below: “8. The State’s refusal of 11.11.1999 cites “financial constraints” and the subsequent decision of 25.11.2003 (taken after the High Court’s direction to reconsider) adverts to financial crisis and a ban on creation of posts. Neither decision engages with relevant considerations placed on record, namely, the Commission’s 1991 resolution and repeated proposals, the acknowledged administrative exigencies of a recruiting body handling large cycles, the continuous deployment of these very hands for years, and the existence of attendant work that is primarily perennial rather than sporadic. While creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. We believe that a non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of “financial constraints”, [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (16 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] ignoring functional necessity and the employer’s own long- standing reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution. 9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of applications, dispatch and office support, and driving, has been continuous and integral to the Commission’s functioning since their engagement between 1989 and 1992. The Commission itself movedfor sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers including the appellants. That consistent internal demand, coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of the appellants’ labour on regular office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the duties are perennial. To continue extracting such work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength is a position that cannot be sustained.” 5.11.5. In Union of India vs K. Velajagan 2025 SCC Online SC 837, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that decision in Uma Devi(supra) cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularization. Relevant extract is as under: “The decision Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as held in recent decision of this Court in Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC Online SC 221 cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative undertaking persisting for years without the employer regularization.” 5.11.6. Also, in Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered Uma Devi(Supra) and directed regularization of service of those employees who have worked for 10 years or more along with all other benefits to which they became entitled. Relevant excerpts have been reproduced below: "35. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (17 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one." 5.12.Reference may usefully be made to Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, wherein, the government prescribes the process of screening which permits eligible contractual employees to shift to permanent posts when temporary scheme or project vacancies turn into regular cadre positions. Employees who have completed at least five years of continuous service become eligible for an assessment of their abilities and service records, leading to possible absorption into permanent roles. 5.12.1. This provision demonstrates the progressive initiative of the government for contractual workers by providing job security via merit bases regularization, reflecting a legislative purpose that ensures fairness, acknowledges long term service, reduces uncertainty and upholds the welfare of dedicated employees within reasonable administrative limits. Therefore, regularizing long term bonafide contractual workers aligns with the very purpose of these Rules. 5.13.In view of the authoritative pronouncements inter alia in Vinod Kumar (Supra), Jaggo (Supra), Shripal (Supra), Dharam Singh (Supra), K. Velajagan (Supra) and Prem Singh (Supra) it is clear that regularization is not a one-time exception. The State cannot continue to rely on Uma Devi (Supra) to justify the engagement of employees for decades without extending the benefits of regular service. [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (18 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] 5.14.In the present case, the writ petitioners were engaged pursuant to an advertisement on the posts of Cook/Chowkidar in Government Ambedkar Hostels. The duties discharged by them are indeed essential and perennial in nature, and therefore, their services cannot be treated as dispensable. 5.16. It is also worth mentioning that the services rendered by the writ petitioners have been entirely blemish-free. No complaint has ever been made against them. On the contrary, appreciation letters have been issued by the Superintendents of the respective hostels acknowledging them as non-contractual employes with their uninterrupted service over decades (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). 5.17. Despite of all this, non-consideration of these employees for regularization by the respondent Department reflects a perpetuation of temporary status for work of a perennial nature, thereby attracting judicial scrutiny and warranting intervention of this Court. This Court cannot lose sight of the principles emerging from Uma Devi(Supra) and subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which reflect a clear intention to safeguard employees from exploitation. Individuals cannot be left to serve indefinitely on daily wage, contractual, work-charged or part time posts without fair opportunity for regularization. Service jurisprudence also recognizes something more fundamental, that the state cannot be allowed to profit from its own inaction when an institution extracts work for decades and then pleads that there are no sanctioned posts or they are not directly engaged by them. Therefore, a welfare state cannot run core public function on the [2025:RJ-JP:52016-DB] (19 of 19) [SAW-371/2023] spine of these contractual workers and then wash its hands by pointing to absence of sanctioned posts. 6. In light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10257/2019 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The writ petitioners are entitled to regularization on the posts of Cook/Chowkidar to which they were initially appointed. 6.1. Consequently, the present Special Appeal Writ is allowed and the Respondent Departments are directed: i. To regularize the services of the appellant after completion of 10 years from the date of his initial appointment. The pay fixation shall be done notionally and actual payment shall be made from the date of filing of the writ petition. ii. that the above exercise shall be completed by the respondent departments within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 6.2 All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ HEENA