JUDGMENT : Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Pradhan-3, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3-Housing Board. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim for regularization vide the impugned order dated 01.09.2023, so issued under Annexure-5 by Opp. Party No.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis vide order of appointment issued on 07.08.1993 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner joined as a Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis on 13.08.1993. 3. 1. It is contended that even though petitioner continued as Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis w.e.f. 13.08.1993, but his claim for regularization when was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30136 of 2021. 3. 2. It is contended that vide order dated 04.01.2021, this Court when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim for his absorption in the regular establishment by following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 , such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 01.09.2023 under Annexure- 5, only on the ground that petitioner’s initial engagement being after the cut off date, so fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dated 15.05.1997 i.e. 12.04.1993, petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though claim of the petitioner for being absorbed in the regular establishment was rejected vide order dated 01.09.2023 under Annexure-5, but as usual he was allowed to continue as a Daily Wage Driver. 3. 4. It is further contended that in view of the recent decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 , the ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected is no more sustainable. 3.5. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 , the ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected is no more sustainable. 3.5. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:- “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 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 Declaration6 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 Corporation7 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 benefits. 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 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: 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 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. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 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. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 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.” 3.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in Para-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:- “14. ...... More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. 15. ……. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx 17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.” 3.7. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo and Shripal , Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18, 19 & 20 has held as follows: “ 13. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo and Shripal , Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18, 19 & 20 has held as follows: “ 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra) , outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 14 . The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained. 15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. xxx xxx xxx 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. xxx xxx xxx 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is an institutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6%per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance .As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 3. 8. It is accordingly contended that while quashing the impugned order under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No.3 be directed to absorb the petitioner in the regular establishment taking into account the decisions in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh so cited (supra). 4. Mr. M.R. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, contended that since petitioner’s initial engagement is after the cut off date i.e. 07.08.1993, in view of the stipulation contained in Resolution dated 15.05.1997 under Annexure-A/2, petitioner’s initial engagement being after the cut-off date, he cannot get the benefit of absorption in the regular establishment in the light of the decisions in the case of Uma Devi, M.L. Keshari and Amarkant Rai so cited (supra). 4. 1. It is also contended that even though the Board has moved the Govt. seeking permission to fill up the vacancies of regular driver from amongst eligible DLR/Work Charged Employees, but in absence of any such permission being issued by the Govt., the Board is not in a position to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim. 4. 2. 1. It is also contended that even though the Board has moved the Govt. seeking permission to fill up the vacancies of regular driver from amongst eligible DLR/Work Charged Employees, but in absence of any such permission being issued by the Govt., the Board is not in a position to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim. 4. 2. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that petitioner was engaged as Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis vide order of appointment issued on 07.08.1993 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner joined as a Daily Wage Driver in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 on 13.08.1993. It is not disputed that w.e.f. 13.08.1993, petitioner is continuing as a Daily Wage Driver as on date. 5. 1. However, pursuant to the earlier order of this Court so passed in W.P.(C) No.30136 of 2021, claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that petitioner’s engagement being after the cut off date, he cannot be absorbed in the regular establishment. 5. 2. This Court placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh so cited (supra), is of the view that since petitioner is continuing as a DLR driver which is not disputed w.e.f. 13.08.1993 and even after rejection of his claim, he is continuing as such, this Court while quashing order dated 01.09.2023 under Annexure-5, direct Opp. Party No.3 to absorb the petitioner in the regular establishment against the vacant post of Driver within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.