1 2026:CGHC:9821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2020 of 2026 1 - Sandeep Singh Kurrey S/o Jhabbu Lal Kurrey Aged About 37 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Smt. Pushpa Pandey W/o Shri D. Pandey Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. 3 - Brijesh Kumar Painkra S/o Shri Leeladhar Painkra Aged About 36 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. 4 - Bhuvneshwer Prasad Gautam S/o Shri Ramnaresh Gautam Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 5 - Khelan Prasad Prajapati S/o Shri Ramdas Prajapati Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Odgi Block District Surajpur C.G. 6 - Rajpati Yadav S/o Shri Kunjlal Prasad Yadav Aged About 43 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In Government Garden, Purandih, O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. 7 - Manjeet Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Deenanath Yadav Aged About 31 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 2 8 - Lupteshwar Gajel S/o Shri Narpati Gajel Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. 9 - Basant Singh Yadav S/o Shri Johan Singh Yadav Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. 10 - Chetan Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bhojlal Sahu Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Korba, District Korba C.G. 11 - Anita Mishra W/o Suryamani Mishra, Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G. 12 - Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Shri D.R. Sahu Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Balod, District Balod C.G. 13 - Khomlal Sahu S/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Jashpur, District Jashpur C.G. 14 - Parmanand Jangde S/o Shri Punaram Jangde Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. 15 - Amit Soni S/o Shri Nirmal Soni Aged About 36 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Korba, District Korba C.G. 16 - Yuvraj Singh S/o Shri Angad Singh Aged About 37 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Assistant Director Horticulture, Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G. 17 - Anisha Pathak D/o Shri B.N. Pathak Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. 3 18 - Mithlesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohanlal Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Field Consultant In The O/o Deputy Director Horticulture, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Agriculture Production Commissioner And Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Directorate Of Horticulture And Farm Forestry, Through- Director, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Call Me Services, Through- Director, C-101/5, 1st Floor, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 25/02 /2026 1. Petitioners has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, especially respondent no.1 & 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization / absorption on the vacant sanctioned post of Rural Horticulture Development Officer as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India decided on 20.12.24. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, especially respondent no.1 & 2 to consider and decide the pending representations of the petitioners within stipulated time interval, in the interest of justice 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to take final decision upon the letter dated 05.08.24 issued by the State Government within stipulated time interval in the interest of justice. 4 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly he granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are working as Field Consultant (Technical Graduate) under the National Horticulture Mission managed and controlled by the Respondents No. 1 & 2. He contended that the petitioners are working since last about more than 10 years on the said post and they have made several requests to the authorities for regularization of their services, based upon which, a proposal was forwarded by the Respondent No. 2/Director seeking an opinion from the State Government as to whether the petitioners can be engaged on contract basis in the instant services and thereafter, the State Government has sought further classificatory proposal on 05.08.2024. Since the claim of petitioners is pending consideration before the Respondent No. 1, final decision could not be taken on the claim of petitioners. 3. He contended that petitioners have submitted representation on 19.11.2025 before the Respondents No. 1 which is also pending consideration and therefore, direction be issued to the Respondent No. 1 to consider the claim of petitioners for regularization of their services. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to Respondent No. 1 to consider and take decision on the representation dated 19.11.2025 submitted by the petitioners, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. He submits that if the representation is pending consideration, it will be considered and decided in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5 6. The grievance of petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that they are continuously in employment since last about more than 10 years with the Respondents/State. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 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 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.” 7. After the decision in 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 6 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. उपरかकᕍत म⸾ नन य उ्䴴तम⸾ न⡍य य लय कᕇ न⠿न्䵓य कᕇ पर〿रかቚ媔ቌ䲚य म⸾ रか जᱍय श㘾 सन ቛ宋 रか सह㤾 न भⵂ न⠿तप ्䵥कᕇ न⠿्䵥चᨾ रか कᕇरか द♈$न⠿नकᕇ ्䵥तन भⵂगᝀ /तद♈्䵕 रあप स न⠿नय कᕍत कᕇम⸾चᨾ र〿रかय( कᕇ) न⠿नयम⸿म⸾न⠿तकᕇरか्䵓 कᕇ) ቚ媔न⠿+य न⠿नम⹍न न स रか न⠿न቗型 र〿रかत कᕇ) ज᰾ त ह㤾$ :- (i) ्䵤ሹ㦌कᕍत, र〿रかकᕍत/स㡍्䵥 कᕇ2 त न⠿नयम⸿म⸾त पद♈ कᕇ न⠿्䵥रぁ्䵍 पद♈्䵝 न⠿कᕇय गᝀय ह㤾 औरか न⠿्䵥भⵂ गᝀ य भⵂरかत न⠿नयम⸾( म⸾ न⠿न቗型 र〿रかत श㘾$्䵌ण⌿्䵓कᕇ ए्䵥: अन⡍य यगᝍयत ए: रかखत ह㤾 त ह㤾 न⠿नयम⸿म⸾त कᕇरかन यगᝍय ह㤾$। (ii) द♈$न⠿नकᕇ ्䵥तन परか, तद♈्䵕 रあप स अ्䵕्䵥 कᕇलकᕍटरか द♈रか परか (द♈$न⠿नकᕇ ्䵥तन परか) ज᰾ब न⠿नय ሹ㦌कᕍत ह㥁ई तब सअब तकᕇ उस पद♈ कᕇ) आ्䵥श㙍यकᕇत रかह㤾 ह㤾$ औरか आगᝀ भⵂ उस पद♈ कᕇ) आ्䵥श㙍यकᕇत ह㤾 त स:ब:म⸿቗型त पद♈ कᕇ न⠿्䵥रぁ्䵍 ऐस ्䵤ሹ㦌कᕍत कᕇ पद♈्䵝 म⸾ नत ह㥁ए न⠿्䵥चᨾ रか न⠿कᕇय ज᰾ सकᕇ गᝀ । (iii) स:ब:म⸿቗型त ्䵤ሹ㦌कᕍत न द♈$न⠿नकᕇ ्䵥तन भⵂगᝀ (चᨾ ह㤾 कᕇलकᕍटरか द♈रか परか) कᕇ रあप म⸾ अ्䵕्䵥 तद♈्䵕 रあप म⸾ द☿द♈न :कᕇ 31-12-1997 तकᕇ लगᝀ त रか उस पद♈ परか य सम⸾कᕇ्䵌 पद♈ परか कᕇ य न⠿कᕇय ह㤾 कᕇ स:ब:቗型 म⸾ लगᝀ त रか कᕇ य कᕇरかन (स्䵥 द♈न ) तब ह㤾 म⸾ न ज᰾ यगᝀ यद☿द♈ ቚ媔त⑍यकᕇ ्䵥्䵧 म⸾ कᕇ ल स्䵥 ቜ岔कᕇ एकᕇ म⸾ ह㤾 स अम⸿቗型कᕇ कᕇ) न ह㤾। लगᝀ त रか स्䵥 कᕇ ल㈿लय ह㤾डℼत ल कᕇ) अ्䵥म⸿቗型 स्䵥 म⸾ ቜ岔कᕇ नह㤾L म⸾ न ज᰾ यगᝀ । (iv) द☿द♈न :कᕇ 31-12-1997 तकᕇ द♈$न⠿नकᕇ ्䵥तन परか अ्䵕्䵥 तद♈्䵕 न⠿नय कᕍत ए्䵥: कᕇ यरかत त2त य ए्䵥: चᨾत ्䵕 ቦ暔्䵓 कᕇम⸾चᨾ र〿रかय( कᕇ न⠿नयम⸿म⸾न⠿तकᕇरか्䵓 न⠿कᕇय ज᰾ य । (v) ्䵤ሹ㦌कᕍत यद☿द♈ कᕇ यभⵂ र〿रかत पद♈( कᕇ न⠿्䵥रぁ्䵍 कᕇ यरかत ह㤾$ त कᕇ यभⵂ र〿रかत पद♈ परか ह㤾 न⠿नयम⸿म⸾त न⠿कᕇय ज᰾ ए न⠿नयम⸿म⸾त पद♈ कᕇ न⠿्䵥रぁ्䵍 कᕇ यरかत ह㤾 त न⠿नयम⸿म⸾त पद♈ परか ह㤾 न⠿नयम⸿म⸾त न⠿कᕇय ज᰾ ए। (vi) छቈ䢍 सगᝀढ∼ लकᕇ स्䵥 (अन स ल㈿चᨾत ज᰾ न⠿तय(, अन स ल㈿चᨾत ज᰾नज᰾ न⠿तय(, औरか अन⡍य न⠿पछडℼ ्䵥गᝀQ कᕇ ल㈿लय आरか्䵌्䵓) अम⸿቗型न⠿नयम⸾, 1994 कᕇ प लन न⠿कᕇय ज᰾ ्䵥 अ्䵕 तR द♈$न⠿नकᕇ ्䵥तन भⵂगᝀ /तद♈्䵕 रあप म⸾ कᕇ यरかत ्䵤ሹ㦌कᕍत ज᰿ज᰾स ्䵥गᝀ स स:ब:म⸿቗型त ह㤾$ रかस㡍टरか कᕇ अन स रか उस न⠿बन⡍द♁ कᕇ सम⸾्䵌 उसकᕇ न⠿नयम⸿म⸾न⠿तकᕇरか्䵓 न⠿कᕇय ज᰾ य ए्䵥: रかस㡍टरか म⸾ अन स ल㈿चᨾत ज᰾ न⠿त, अन स ल㈿चᨾत ज᰾नज᰾ न⠿त, अन⡍य न⠿पछडℼ ्䵥गᝀ कᕇ न⠿बन⡍द♁ यद☿द♈ उम⹍म⸾ द♈्䵥 रか कᕇ अभⵂ ्䵥 म⸾ र〿रかकᕍत रかह㤾त ह㤾U त भⵂन⠿्䵥ष㝍य म⸾ ह㤾न ्䵥 ल र〿रかሹ㦌कᕍतय( कᕇ) प ቔ和तX आरかण⌿्䵌त न⠿बन⡍द♁ओጂ कᕇ ल㈿लय ቚ媔 ्䵕म⸿म⸾कᕇत कᕇ आ቗型 रか परか ब$कᕇल गᝀ कᕇ) प ቔ和तX कᕇ) तरかह㤾 कᕇ) ज᰾ यगᝀ । (vii) न⠿नयम⸿म⸾न⠿तकᕇरか्䵓 स㡍्䵥 कᕇ2 त ए्䵥: र〿रかकᕍत पद♈ परか ह㤾 न⠿कᕇय ज᰾ एगᝀ । इस ह㤾त ज᰿ज᰾न न⠿्䵥भⵂ गᝀ( म⸾ आ्䵥श㙍यकᕇ ह㤾 ्䵥ह㤾 : स :खᙍयतरか पद♈ न⠿न቞庌म⸾Xत न⠿कᕇय ज᰾ य। यद☿द♈ पद♈ ह㤾 कᕇलकᕍटरか द♈रか परか स㡍्䵥 कᕇ2 त ह㤾 त स㡍्䵥 कᕇ2 त पद♈( ( द♈$न⠿नकᕇ ्䵥तन परか ) कᕇ न⠿नयम⸿म⸾त ्䵥तनम⸾ न म⸾ पर〿रか्䵥ቔ和तXत ( स2ज᰿ज᰾त ) कᕇरかन ह㤾गᝀ । (viii) पर〿रかप्䵔 ज᰾ रか ह㤾न कᕇ ब द♈ श㘾 सकᕇ)य न⠿्䵥भⵂ गᝀ( ቛ宋 रか न⠿नयम⸿म⸾न⠿तकᕇरか्䵓 कᕇ आद♈श㘾 ज᰿ज᰾स द☿द♈न ज᰾ रか न⠿कᕇय ज᰾ यगᝀ उस द☿द♈न :कᕇ स ह㤾 न⠿नयम⸿म⸾त कᕇम⸾चᨾ रか 7 म⸾ न ज᰾ ्䵥गᝀ। प ्䵥 कᕇ न⠿कᕇस द☿द♈न :कᕇ स नह㤾L। पद♈+म⸾ स चᨾ म⸾ इनकᕇ न म⸾ आपस ्䵥र〿रか्䵗त अन स रか एनबⱍल कᕇ सबस न चᨾ रかख ज᰾ यगᝀ। (ix) उपरかकᕍत न स रか न⠿नयम⸿म⸾त रあप स न⠿नय ሹ㦌कᕍत द♈` गᝀई ्䵤ሹ㦌कᕍतय( कᕇ) आपस ्䵥र〿रか्䵗त द♈$न⠿नकᕇ ्䵥तन भⵂगᝀ कᕇम⸾चᨾ रか /कᕇलकᕍटरか द♈रか परか, अ्䵕्䵥 तद♈्䵕 रあप स कᕇ यभⵂ रか ्䵇ह㤾्䵓 कᕇ द☿द♈न :कᕇ कᕇ आ቗型 रか प न⠿न቗型 र〿रかत कᕇ) ज᰾ ्䵥गᝀ । ्䵥र〿रか्䵗त +म⸾ न⠿न቗型 र〿रかत कᕇरかत सम⸾य यद☿द♈ एकᕇ स अम⸿቗型कᕇ ्䵤ሹ㦌कᕍत एकᕇ द☿द♈न :कᕇ म⸾ न⠿नय कᕍत न⠿कᕇय गᝀय ह㤾( त उनम⸾ स ज᰾ आय म⸾ अम⸿቗型कᕇ ह㤾गᝀ उस ्䵥र〿रか्䵗 म⸾ न ज᰾ एगᝀ .” 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 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 8 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 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 9 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 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. Hon’ble Supreme Court also criticized the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures 10 perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 10.Recently, in SLP (C) No.30762/2024, parties being Bhola Nath vs State of Jharkhand & ors, decided on 31.1.2026, Hon’ble 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 11 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 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. 12 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 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 13 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 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. 14 • 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.” 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 15 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 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 submitted representation dated 19.11.2025 before the Respondents No. 1 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 directing the Respondent No. 1 to consider and take decision on the representation dated 19.11.2025 16 as submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, keeping in mind the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, preferably within a period of 06 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