1 2026:CGHC:7966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13917 of 2025 1 - Vinod Kumar Markam S/o. Indraman Singh Markam, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Motesara, Block Sajha, Ps. Debarbija, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) Working At Office Of Block Education Officer, Berla, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) (Data Entry/ Computer Operator) 2 - Brijmohan Lal Sinha, S/o Shanturam Sinha, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Bahira, Post Karesara, Ps Bemetara, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) Working At Office Of Block Education Officer, Nawagarh, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.)......(Data Entry/ Computer Operator) 3 - Ashwan Kumar, S/o. Bhagchand Kurre, Aged About 37 Years R/o. Bhothidih, Post Mohrenga, Ps Bemetara Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) Working At Office Of Block Education Officer, Bemetara Dist. Bemetara (C.G.).......(Data Entry/ Computer Operator) 4 - Girwar Lal Sinha, S/o. Saroj Kumar Sinha, Aged About 34 Years R/o. Godmarra, Post Gadadih, Ps Parpodi, Block Sajha, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) Working At Office Of Block Education Officer, Sajha/ District Education Officer, Bemetara, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) (Data Entry/ Computer Operator) 5 - Purushottam Lal Banjare, S/o. Roshan Lal Banjare, Aged About 37 Years R/o. Ward No. 31, Danteshwari Chowk, Village Devbaloda, Tehsil Bhilai- 3, Dist. Durg (C.G.) Working At Office Of Block Education Officer, Sajha, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) (Data Entry/ Computer Operator) 6 - Pawan Kumar Kurre, S/o. Late Sitaram Kurre, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Nagar Panchayat Berla, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) Working At Office Of Block Education Officer, Berla, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) (Data Entry/ Computer Operator) ... Petitioner 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Directorate Of Public Instructions, Section-3, 1st Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District Education Officer, Bemetara, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer, Sajha, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) 6 - The Block Education Officer, Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 7 - The Block Education Officer, Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 13/02 /2026 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the series of judicial verdicts are referred above right from Umadevi’s case (supra) read with Narendra Kumar Tiwari’s case (supra) upto recent verdicts as a onetime measure within a timeframe as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are employed under the respondent departments on the post of Data Entry Operators/Computer Operator since 2011-12. They are continuously 3 working on the said post since then, without any break in service. He also contended that the work of the petitioners is under the Mid-day Meal Scheme as provided by the State Government. Petitioners since the date of initial appointment are working on the fixed honorarium of Rs. 9,000/- and in view of the circular of the State Government as also, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services on the ground that the petitioner are continuously in service since last more than 10 years and are still working as Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that the petitioner has not submitted any representation before the authorities raising all their grievances as pleaded in this writ petition and have directly filed this instant writ petition before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that they are continuously in employment since last about more than 14 years with the Respondents/State on honorarium basis. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra) considering that the daily-wage employee/temporary employee will not be discriminated to the extent of wages/salary as paid to the regular employees has considered the regularization of employees who have been employed by the employer, their service is not illegal but irregular and is continuous employment since about more than 10 years and observed thus:- “ 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly 4 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 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 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 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 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 regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 6. After the decision in the case of Umadevi (Supra), State Government has issued circular addressing to all the stakeholders of different departments of the State of Chhattisgarh on 05.03.2008 with the subject that regularization of Class III and Class IV employees working as daily-wage employee or temporary employee. In the aforementioned notification, it is mentioned that the procedure for regularization of services of Class III and Class IV employees working as daily-wage or temporary employees. Paragraph 2 of the said circular is extracted below for ready reference:- “ 2. उपरोक्त मा नन य उच्चतमा न्य य लय के निनर्णय के परिरोप्रेक्ष्य मा रो ज्य शा सन द्वा रो सहा न भू नितप र्वके निर्वचा रो केरो दै$निनके र्वतन भूगी /तदैर्थ रूप स निनय क्त केमाचा रिरोय( के) निनयमिमानितकेरोर्ण के) प्रेनि+य निनम्न न स रो निनर्धा रिरोत के) जा त हा$ :- (i) व्यक्तिक्त, रिरोक्त/स्र्व के2 त निनयमिमात पदै के निर्वरुद्ध पदैस्थ निकेय गीय हा औरो निर्वभू गी य भूरोत निनयमा( मा निनर्धा रिरोत शा$क्षणिर्णके एर्व: अन्य यग्यत ए: रोखत हा त हा निनयमिमात केरोन यग्य हा$। (ii) दै$निनके र्वतन परो, तदैर्थ रूप स अर्थर्व केलक्टरो दैरो परो (दै$निनके र्वतन परो) जाब निनय क्तिक्त हुई तब सअब तके उस पदै के) आर्वश्यकेत रोहा हा$ औरो आगी भू उस पदै के) आर्वश्यकेत हा त स:ब:मिर्धात पदै के निर्वरुद्ध ऐस व्यक्तिक्त के पदैस्थ मा नत हुए निर्वचा रो निकेय जा सके गी । 5 (iii) स:ब:मिर्धात व्यक्तिक्त न दै$निनके र्वतन भूगी (चा हा केलक्टरो दैरो परो) के रूप मा अर्थर्व तदैर्थ रूप मा दिदैन :के 31-12-1997 तके लगी त रो उस पदै परो य समाकेक्ष पदै परो के य निकेय हा के स:ब:र्धा मा लगी त रो के य केरोन (सर्व दैन ) तब हा मा न जा यगी यदिदै प्रेत्यके र्वर्ष मा के ल सर्व ब्रेके एके मा हा स अमिर्धाके के) न हा। लगी त रो सर्व के लिलय हाड़त ल के) अर्वमिर्धा सर्व मा ब्रेके नहाL मा न जा यगी । (iv) दिदैन :के 31-12-1997 तके दै$निनके र्वतन परो अर्थर्व तदैर्थ निनय क्त एर्व: के यरोत त2त य एर्व: चात र्थ श्रेर्ण केमाचा रिरोय( के निनयमिमानितकेरोर्ण निकेय जा य । (v) व्यक्तिक्त यदिदै के यभू रिरोत पदै( के निर्वरुद्ध के यरोत हा$ त के यभू रिरोत पदै परो हा निनयमिमात निकेय जा ए निनयमिमात पदै के निर्वरुद्ध के यरोत हा त निनयमिमात पदै परो हा निनयमिमात निकेय जा ए। (vi) छत्ती सगीढ़ लके सर्व (अन स लिचात जा नितय(, अन स लिचात जानजा नितय(, औरो अन्य निपछड़ र्वगीQ के लिलय आरोक्षर्ण) अमिर्धानिनयमा, 1994 के प लन निकेय जा र्व अर्थ तR दै$निनके र्वतन भूगी /तदैर्थ रूप मा के यरोत व्यक्तिक्त जिजास र्वगी स स:ब:मिर्धात हा$ रोस्टरो के अन स रो उस निबन्दु के समाक्ष उसके निनयमिमानितकेरोर्ण निकेय जा य एर्व: रोस्टरो मा अन स लिचात जा नित, अन स लिचात जानजा नित, अन्य निपछड़ र्वगी के निबन्दु यदिदै उम्मा दैर्व रो के अभू र्व मा रिरोक्त रोहात हाU त भूनिर्वष्य मा हान र्व ल रिरोक्तिक्तय( के) प र्तितX आरोणिक्षत निबन्दुओं के लिलय प्रे र्थमिमाकेत के आर्धा रो परो ब$केल गी के) प र्तितX के) तरोहा के) जा यगी । (vii) निनयमिमानितकेरोर्ण स्र्व के2 त एर्व: रिरोक्त पदै परो हा निकेय जा एगी । इस हात जिजान निर्वभू गी( मा आर्वश्यके हा र्वहा : स :ख्यतरो पदै निनर्मिमाXत निकेय जा य। यदिदै पदै हा केलक्टरो दैरो परो स्र्व के2 त हा त स्र्व के2 त पदै( ( दै$निनके र्वतन परो ) के निनयमिमात र्वतनमा न मा परिरोर्वर्तितXत ( स2जिजात ) केरोन हागी । (viii) परिरोपत्र जा रो हान के ब दै शा सके)य निर्वभू गी( द्वा रो निनयमिमानितकेरोर्ण के आदैशा जिजास दिदैन जा रो निकेय जा यगी उस दिदैन :के स हा निनयमिमात केमाचा रो मा न जा र्वगी। प र्व के निकेस दिदैन :के स नहाL। पदै+मा स चा मा इनके न मा आपस र्वरिरोष्ठत अन स रो एनब्ल के सबस न चा रोख जा यगी। (ix) उपरोक्त न स रो निनयमिमात रूप स निनय क्तिक्त दै` गीई व्यक्तिक्तय( के) आपस र्वरिरोष्ठत दै$निनके र्वतन भूगी केमाचा रो /केलक्टरो दैरो परो, अर्थर्व तदैर्थ रूप स के यभू रो ग्रहार्ण के दिदैन :के के आर्धा रो प निनर्धा रिरोत के) जा र्वगी । र्वरिरोष्ठत +मा निनर्धा रिरोत केरोत समाय यदिदै एके स अमिर्धाके व्यक्तिक्त एके दिदैन :के मा निनय क्त निकेय गीय हा( त उनमा स जा आय मा अमिर्धाके हागी उस र्वरिरोष्ठ मा न जा एगी .” 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 considering the decision in case Umadevi (Supra) has observed thus:- “ 8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3)2, is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of 6 Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut- off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench. 9. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise — the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.” 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 while considering the claim of part-time/ad hoc employees appointed as Safaiwale, Khalasi who earlier engaged in CWC Establishment at Faridabad had observed thus:- “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 7 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 judgment 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. 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 8 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 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. 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. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the 9 appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post- retiral benefits.” 9. In case of Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, Hon'ble Apex Court had held that mere procedural formalities cannot stand in the way of regularizing service of an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but who has rendered services akin to that of a regular employee, over a substantial period of time, in the capacity of a regular employee. It has been observed in the relevant paragraphs (i.e. para 6 & 7) that:- “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 judgment 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....” 10.Recently, in SLP (C) No.30762/2024, parties being Bhola Nath vs State of Jharkhand & ors, decided on 31.1.2026, Hon’ble 10 Supreme Court after referring its earlier decisions on the very issue, has concluded thus:- “13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India10, this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam11, and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India12, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. 13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.13, this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad- hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the 11 careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent- State’s contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. FINAL CONCLUSION: 14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad- hocism or to discard long-serving employees in 12 a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment . 11.Following the decision in the case of Jaggo (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 221 while considering the claim of regularization of the appellants therein had observed thus:- “12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer's municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project- based. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to long-serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent. 13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer's direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements. 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records— despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be 13 dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs: “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. ……… 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 labelled 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. 14 • 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.” 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness : the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date 15 of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. 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.” 12.In the above facts of the case and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and further considering that the petitioners have not submitted any representation before the Respondents No.1 & 2 raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition, in the opinion of this Court, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioners to submit representation before the Respondents No. 1 & 2 raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition and in the event, petitioners submit representation, the Respondents No. 1 & 2 shall consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, keeping in mind the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme 16 Court as discussed above, preferably within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of the representation. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY