1 2026:CGHC:1031 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9496 of 2023 1 - Goutam Kumar S/o Ghamsu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Bargada, Post Donkrabhata, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/01/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P/1), whereby his claim for regularization was rejected on the ground of ineligibility. The petitioner was appointed as a labourer in 1985 and has been continuously RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 performing duties of D.D.T. spraying in the specified areas under the instructions and control of the respondent authorities till date. As per the State of Chhattisgarh circular dated 05.03.2008, employees working prior to 05.03.2004 are entitled to consideration for regularization. Despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the respondent department failed to regularize the services of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to set aside the Annexure P/1 and direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner forthwith as per circular. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner's matter. 10.3 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, the the petitioner was appointed as a labourer under the respondent department in the year 1985 and has been continuously performing duties of D.D.T. spraying in specified areas under the control and instructions of the respondents, as evidenced by letter dated 04.11.1999 (Annexure P/2). Despite rendering uninterrupted service for decades, the petitioner’s claim for regularization was not considered even after 3 submission of a representation dated 25.02.2019, though the State of Chhattisgarh issued a circular dated 05.03.2008 providing for regularization of daily wage employees working prior to 05.03.2004. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing WP(S) No. 6855/2021, which was disposed of on 13.12.2021 with a direction to the respondents to consider his claim (Annexure P/3); however, due to non-compliance, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 146/2023, wherein vide order dated 17.02.2023 the respondents were again directed to decide the representation (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.06.2023, which was rejected by order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P/5), despite the fact that several similarly situated daily wage employees were regularized pursuant to the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, and further supported by the Division Bench judgment dated 16.05.2017 in Tukaram, thereby compelling the petitioner to file the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that in view of the circular/notification dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government, the petitioner, having completed uninterrupted and continuous service since 1985, fully satisfies the eligibility criteria for regularization, and therefore denial of such benefit is 4 wholly unjustified. Learned counsel contends that the respondent department has regularized the services of several similarly situated daily wage employees, and hence denial of the same benefit to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench as well as this Hon’ble Court, entitling him to regularization. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) is legal, reasoned and has been passed strictly in compliance with the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in WP(S) No. 6855/2021, after due examination of the petitioner’s service records by the competent authority. It is contended that the petitioner was initially engaged as a daily wager only on 17.04.1998, his services were disengaged on 14.02.2000, and he was reinstated on 17.04.2006 pursuant to an award of the Labour Court, and thus he does not fall within the eligibility criteria prescribed under the State Government circular dated 05.03.2008, which applies only to daily wage employees engaged during the period 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997. Learned counsel further submits that the law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi is not applicable to the present case, as the petitioner was not working against a duly sanctioned post, nor was he regularly appointed in accordance with constitutional scheme. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner has no enforceable legal right to seek 5 regularization and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is evident that the role of petitioner was 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. 8. 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. 6 9. In the matter of M.L. Kesari (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing the issue with regard to regularization, has held as follows:- “5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered on 10.04.2006. In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 6. 6. This Court in Umadevi (supra) further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless 7 he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in [S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) SCR 128], 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. 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 abovereferred 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 regularize 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 8 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...." 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without 9 undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 9. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, 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, regularize their services. 10. Further, in the matter of Vinod Kumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny 10 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 the said judgment are reproduced herein-below :- “5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, 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. 11 6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi (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 Umadevi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Umadevi (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 Umadevi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: 12 "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in [S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128: AIR 1967 SC 1071), R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409: (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507: 1980 SCC (L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR 937] 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. The question of regularisation 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 13 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. (emphasis in original)" 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.” 11. Recently, in the matter of Jaggo v. Union of India and others passed in SLP(C) No.5580/2024 decided on 20.12.2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the 14 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 15 counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Umadevi (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 16 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 Umadevi (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 17 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.” 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of aforementioned judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as further considering the factual aspect of the matter, it is apparent that temporary employee cannot be made victim of his temporary service and he is required to be considered for regularization. It is his legitimate expectation to be regularized and he cannot suffer from misuse of "Temporary" labels, arbitrary termination, lack of career progression, using outsourcing as a shield and denial of basic rights and benefits as he is serving with the respondent authorities. 13. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties particularly the fact that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and he has completed more than 10-17 years of his service further he has filed representations before the 18 respondent authorities ventilating his grievance for regularization, the concerned respondent authorities is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for regularization keeping in mind that the petitioner is working with the respondent authorities since long back and his service is still required by the respondent authorities, which is evident from his extension order issued in favour of the petitioner. 14. 14. In view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner with respect to regularization and decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. With the aforementioned observation and direction, the writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat