[2026:RJ-JP:1642-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 808/2021 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3509/2012 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur. 2. The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat Jaipur. 3. The District Collector, Bharatpur. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur. 5. Block Development Oficer, Panchayat Samiti Kaman, Bharatpur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Hari S/o Shri Panni, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Lanka Gate Mohalla, Kaman District Bharatpur (Deceased) 2. Shila, Aged About 66 Years, W/o Late Shri Hari 3. Rajesh S/o Late Shri Hari, Aged About 34 Years, R/ Lanka Gate Mohalla, Kaman District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.P. Mathur, AAG with Ms. Devyanshi Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 15/01/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. [2026:RJ-JP:1642-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-808/2021] 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents were working with them as part time employee, therefore learned Single Judge has wrongly given direction for regularization of their services. 3. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, observed as under:- “9. In the opinion of this Court, the State has firstly flouted the Courts’ orders which was passed in favour of the petitioner. He did not challenge the said order before the Division Bench or before the Supreme Court after the aforesaid order having been attained finality. The respondents refused to regularize him on the self-same post which was considered already taken in the writ petition in defence and were not accepted by the Co-ordinate Bench. Such approach shows adamant and stubborn attitude with a purpose not to comply with the Courts’ orders. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents are generally well settled to be laid down by the Apex Court. However, each case has to be seen on its facts or to a person has been working for 30 years cannot be left to be deprived of long service which he has rendered with the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has also cited judgment passed in Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014) 5 SCC 300 wherein it was held that regularization and absorption is not a matter of course and depends upon facts of the case. The facts of the said case, however, are found to be not similar to that of the present case, the same would have no application to the present petition. 11. In view thereof and in the light of the notification dated 27.02.2009 and directions issued by this Court, there was no occasion to re-examine the case of the petitioner whether he is entitled for regularization or not as that aspect already concluded by this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition of the petitioner which was not challenged any further and it attained finality. In the opinion of this Court, this second round of litigation forced upon the petitioner was also unwarranted. 12. Be that as it may, keeping in view the above, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be treated to be regularized as per the directions of this Court passed earlier on 16.03.2011 w.e.f. the date of filing of the said writ petition i.e. 10.11.2009. The orders shall now be passed by the respondents with all notional benefits prior to 10.11.2009 and actual benefits from 10.11.2009 in the regular pay scale of Class IV employee and the benefit of selection scale as admissible shall also be granted to the petitioner. The arrears shall be calculated and released along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. A cost of Rs.50,000/- is also imposed on the respondents which shall also be paid to the petitioner. The compliance shall be made within a period of two months henceforth, failing which the petitioner shall be free to file a contempt petition before this Court without further notice.” 4. Prayer is made for allowing the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submitted that [2026:RJ-JP:1642-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-808/2021] the issue involved in this appeal has been considered and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in a recent judgment in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 decided on 20.12.2024, wherein it has been observed as under:- “10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:1642-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-808/2021] 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.” 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the respondents have been working with the appellants since the year 1980 as part time Safai Karamchari. 8. In our considered view, the issue involved in this appeal has already been considered and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Jaggo (supra), therefore, no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In view of the above, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellants is dismissed, however, the cost of Rs. 50,000/- as imposed by the learned Single Judge is waived. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PAYAL DHAWAN /31