Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Rama Chandra Pradhan vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 15 May, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022
Reserved on 27.04.2026 Pronounced on 15.05.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Rama Chandra Pradhan, aged about 36 years,
S/o- Sri. Aparti Pradhan of At- Khalabara, Via-
Bhogari, Dist-Balesore, PIN-756038.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its
Secretary, Department of Textiles, Ministry of
Textiles, Government of India, Udyog Bhawan,
Dr. Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi-11001.
2. Director General, National Institute of Fashion
Technology, NIFT Campus, Hauzkhas, Near
Gulmohar Park, New Delhi 110 016.
2. Director, National Institute of Fashion
Technology, Bhubaneswar, Plot No.24, Opp
KIIT School of Management, Chandaka
Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar, Dist.
Khurda.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. A.Swain, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.Mishra, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.15
17:14:50 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The prayer of the applicant in this OA is for his regularization in Multi Tasking Service [MTS] since he has continuously been serving to the department being engaged initially through outsourcing from 2010 and, subsequently, directly through department on short term contract basis since 2019 till date as per clause 32(4) of NIFT Statute, 2020 and law.
2. It is the case of the respondents in their counter that the applicant was initially deployed through M/s Oriental Security Service on outsourcing basis from 26.07.2010 and M/s Commando Security Service w.e.f. 01.02.2016. Thus, he was not on the pay role of NIFT, Bhubaneswar from 26.07.2010 to 02.02.2019. Subsequently, he was deployed on adhoc/short term contract basis for a period of five months by the department. Thereafter, he was deployed in NIFT in different spells with intermittent breaks with specific condition that he can be terminated by either side by writing without assigning any reasons/giving one month remuneration in lieu of notice. Further, it is the case of the respondents that clause 32 (4) of RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 NIFT, Statute, 2020 has no application to the case of the applicant since in the said clause it is provided that regularization can be considered in case of long term contract employees whereas the applicant has been engaged/appointed on short term contract basis from time to time. Rather, the case of the applicant is governed by Para 33 (2) of NIFT, Statute, 2020 wherein discretion is left with the authority concerned for engaging the employees with such term and conditions to be specifically mentioned in the offer of appointment. The DoP&T issued OM dated 07.10.2020 taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it is provided that one time exercise to be made for regularization of daily wage/adhoc employees, who have completed 10 years of engagement as on 10.04.2006, and, since, the applicant did not fulfill the said condition, the DoP&T circular has no application. Special provision was made by the NIFT vide OM dated 08.03.2022 stating inter alia that all such short term contract employees, who have rendered two years of service will be RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 allowed to appear in the recruitment process provided they fulfill all the conditions in the RRs irrespective of their age and, therefore, the casually engaged employees are engaged to participate in the upcoming recruitment process against regular vacancies. It is, therefore, decided that to meet the temporary shortfall of manpower, MTS, Drivers, electrician, Plumber, Gardener and Caretaker will be engaged through outsourcing only. In short, it is stated that since the engagement of the applicant was not through any due process of selection as per rules, the applicant does not have any right to claim regularization only because he was engaged initially through outsourcing and, thereafter by department on short term contract basis. The applicant is still working being engaged on contractual basis by the department since 2019 has not been disputed either in the counter or in course of hearing.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties reiterated their stand point taken in their pleadings [OA, counter and rejoinder]. In course of hearing learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Chander RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 Mohan Negi and others Vs State of Himachal Paradesh & Ors, 2020 (1) OLR SC 865, Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Dharam Singh & Ors Vs State of U.P & Anr, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 INSC 156, Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 129, and Prem Chand and others Vs State of Punjab and another, Civil Appeal No.12139 of 2025 dated March 16, 2026 in support of his stand and Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a batch of cases styled Madan Singh and ors Vs The State of Haryana, 2026 INSC 379. After giving due consideration to the submissions, we have gone through the pleadings and documents filed in support thereof.
4. It may be noted that law in the matter of regularization of causal/adhoc/contractual employees has undergone a sea changes after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 The relevant portion of the subsequent decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court are quoted herein below:
(i) Chander Mohan Negi and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2020 (1) OLR -SC-865-
"13. It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed teachers under the various schemes benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code 1985. The judgments relied on by learned counsel Sri Prashant Bhushan also would not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein for the reason that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need of framing schools which were vacant for a very long time, having regard to topographical such policies to meet the immediate requirement to fill up single teacher conditions, which is not even controverted by way of any rejoinder before circumstances of these cases, we are of the that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are working for the meagre salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make back door entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission. Further it is also to be noted that though such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned such policies and appointments was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petition there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 averments of the State as stated in the reply affidavit. Having regard to nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to material placed before this Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order by the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court."
(ii) Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others, (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826)-
"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 longterm 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 significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 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."
(iii) Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 9 SCC 327/2024 (1) SCR 1230-
"2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42688 of 2001 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42692 of 2001, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 21.11.2001 were dismissed. The Tribunal's judgment negated the appellants' plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' against which they were temporarily appointed. Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period exceeding 25 years.
xxx xxx xxx
4. The appellants have approached this Court arguing that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to recognize the substantive nature of their duties, which align with regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme-based roles they were originally appointed for. Furthermore, their promotion by a regularly constituted Departmental Promotional Committee, the selection process they underwent, and the continuous nature of their service for over a quarter of a century underscored their argument for regularization and that the High Court has RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 incorrectly applied the principles from the case of Uma Devi (supra) to their situation.
5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot bemerely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme- specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.
xxx xxx xxx
7. The judgement 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. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations."
(iv) Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221- the Hon'ble Apex reinforced the principle noted above.
(v) Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another, (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025)-
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long- term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
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 dismissed summarily as RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 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 India 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 longterm 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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 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."
xxx xxx xxx
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 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 "adhocism" 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 a constitutional 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. 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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 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. 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 Judgement.
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. 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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 16 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 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."
(vi) Municipal Council Rep. by its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District A.P. Vs K.Jayaram & Ors etc], SLP(C) Nos.17711-17713 of 2019 dated 16.12.2025 -
"9. The Court would pause here to indicate that it is not anybody's case that the mode of employment through a contractor itself was illegal or there was any illegality in the terms and conditions of the contract so as to make it ultra vires any constitutional provision or to make it discriminatory, and further there has been no challenge to such contract or any of the terms stipulated in the contract. Another issue on facts, which has been addressed by learned counsel for the respondents is that the respondents could not have been exploited by the parties and the fact that they were the same persons being sent, though through different contractors itself shows that the relationship was direct and only a sham camouflage was created; that of a contractor being the intermediary. To this, in our considered view, the answer may not be in clear black and white terms and is still a grey area for the reason that even if the respondents were the same persons who actually worked for the appellant, there can be instances where the new contractor, to maintain continuity and to ensure that there is no complaint from the employer, the appellant in the present case, continues with the same persons who were already employed and were working with the appellant. Thus, there is argument for and against such stand, which we will not dwell on any further. Another issue which has been flagged by learned senior counsel for the respondents is that the respondents being in the position they are, and the relief given being the minimum of the time scale of the pay attached to the regular post cannot be termed as giving them something which was not due or something excessive, for ultimately they also have a family to support and they are also performing the job which is performed by people on the regular establishment. We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that such issue raised by learned senior counsel is of relevance, but the Court feels that the mode of contractual employment, that too, by a contractor and not directly by RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 17 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 the employer will have to be seen in a different light in the eyes of law. If all such distinctions between a regular employee and such contractual employees is not made, then the basic concept of hiring through various modes and in different capacity would lose its purpose and sanctity and ultimately everybody would be getting exactly the same benefit. This cannot be permitted in law for the reason that employment under a State entity is a public asset and every citizen of the country has a right to apply for it. In a regular employment, directly made by the said State entity, there are safeguards to ensure that the system of employment/engagement is transparent and fulfills a minimum criteria and is open to all eligible persons and a mode/procedure is adopted for ultimately choosing the right person. When employees/workmen are taken through a contractor, it is the absolute discretion of the contractor as to whom and through which mode he would choose such persons to be sent to the principal. This is where the difference lies, which is a very valid distinction in law. The reason why there are safeguards in regular appointment is that there should not be any favoritism or other extraneous consideration where persons, only on merit, are recruited through a fully transparent procedure known in law. If the persons who are employed through a contractor, and have come to work, are given equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would amount to giving premium and sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as there is no mode prescribed in any contract as to how the contractor would employ or choose the persons who are to be sent, except for the basic qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which they are required. The judgment/ order relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant aptly covers the field in the present case. The judgment cited by learned senior counsel for the respondents is basically different on facts for the reason that there the contractual employment was directly by the principal and in that background contractual workers have been regularized.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and for the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the High Court is set aside and the orders of the Tribunal stand restored.
11. Having passed the order, we feel that sometimes justice is required to be tempered with mercy as human factors cannot be totally lost sight of. In such view of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 18 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 matter, we would require the appellant to look into whether the jobs which were being done by the respondents, in the background that they have not been disengaged or returned to the contractor on the ground of being unsatisfactory, having uninterrupted service under the appellant for decades can be regularized on posts, which prima facie appears to be perpetual in nature. We make it clear that this direction is limited for the purposes of the present case only as it has been passed in the special facts and circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. We expect the appellant to take a compassionate and sympathetic view in the matter."
(vii) Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 129-
"11. At the outset, we find it necessary to express our disapproval of the manner in which the High Court has approached the present lis. The controversy before the Court was not one of mere acquiescence or implied waiver of rights. The High Court, in our view, has proceeded on a mechanical application of precedents without engaging with the core constitutional issues involved, thereby reducing the dispute to one of acceptance of contractual terms, divorced from its larger constitutional context. 11.1. This Court has consistently held that the State, being a model employer, is saddled with a heightened obligation in the discharge of its functions. A model employer is expected to act with high probity, fairness and candour, and bears a social responsibility to treat its employees in a manner that preserves their dignity. The State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness or unequal bargaining position.
11.2. It therefore follows that the State is required to exercise heightened caution in its role as an employer, the constitutional mandate casting upon it a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an obligation from which no exception can be countenanced.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.15
17:14:50 +05'30'
19 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022
xxx xxx xxx
11.5. The consistent case of the appellants has been that the respondent-State's refusal to grant regularization is arbitrary and therefore warrants judicial interference. Article 14 of the Constitution casts a negative obligation upon the State to treat all persons equally, and arbitrariness, being antithetical to the equality principle, is proscribed as violative of Article 14.
11.6. The Constitution Bench in Basheshar Nath v. Comm. Income Tax, long ago clarified that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution are incapable of waiver. Consequently, if the action of the respondent-State is found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the mere fact that the appellants' engagement was governed by contractual terms and conditions cannot be construed as a waiver of their fundamental rights."
(viii) Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 INSC 156- The Tribunal dismissed the prayer for regularization of causal employees by applying the decision of the Uma Devi (supra), which was upheld by the Hon'ble High court and in challenge, the Hon'ble Apex court held that the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the applicants therein by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra) and the Hon'ble High Court also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal by observing that 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. Accordingly, directed to regularize the service of the applicants therein. RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 20 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022
(ix) Prem Chand and others vs State of Punjab and another, Civil Appeal No.12139 of 2025 dated March 16, 2026-
"16. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and upon perusing the materials on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellants are entitled to the relief of regularization of their services.
17. At the outset, it must be noted that it is not the case of the Respondents that the Appellants do not possess the requisite qualifications for the post in question or that the requisite vacancies are unavailable. It is also an admitted fact that the appointments were made against existing vacancies and not against supernumerary or surplus posts created artificially.
18. The core question that falls for consideration is whether the Appellants are covered under the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003, 15.12.2006 and 18.03.2011 issued by the State of Punjab for regularization of ad hoc employees. It is not disputed that the Appellants were appointed before 13.06.1996. The Respondents have sought to exclude the Appellants solely on the ground that their service tenures contained breaks ranging from 5 to 187 days. Therefore, it has been argued that their engagements were not continuous, making them ineligible under the policy. Furthermore, it has been argued that they are also ineligible under the policy dated 18.03.2011 as the Appellants were no longer in service when it came into force.
19. We are unable to agree with this reasoning as it has come on record that a large number of similarly placed employees have been regularized in various departments of the State Government in view of the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003 and15.12.2006 in spite of the fact that there were breaks in their service as in the case of the present Appellants. The details of as many as 46 ad hoc employees who were given the benefit of the policies have been brought forward who had breaks ranging from a period of 64 to 334 days i.e. periods longer than that in the case of the Appellants. RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 21 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 This fact has not been disputed by the Respondents. Therefore, a case for parity is made out as the Appellants have service record with breaks ranging from merely 5 to 187 days. The State cannot selectively deny the application of the policy to the Appellants, who are identically situated with these persons, with no cogent justification.
20. Moreover, the breaks in service relied upon by the Respondents to deny regularization are, on a closer examination, artificial in nature. The Appellants were consistently re-engaged, save for short breaks, and continued to discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the appointing authorities on the same posts. The breaks do not reflect any genuine abandonment of service or voluntary cessation of employment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the long service of the Appellants cannot be disregarded in lieu of artificial breaks and by leveling the initial employment as ad hoc.
21. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.08.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside as also the order of dismissal from service of the Appellants dated 23.01.2008. The Appellants, as a consequence, shall be deemed to be in continuous service without any break.
22. The services of the Appellants would stand regularised with effect from the date services of the similarly situated persons have been regularised under the policy decision dated 26.05.2003. The Respondents are directed to pass the order of regularisation of the services of the Appellants within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Their pay and allowances shall be fixed from the initial date of regularisation. The Appellants would be entitled to continuity of service with all consequential benefits including increments and other benefits as a regular employee except for the actual financial benefits till date. The Appellants in case report for duty on or before 30th of April, 2026 would be entitled to the pay and allowances from today onwards failing which the said benefits shall be payable from the date of reporting for duty. In case, the Appellants have attained the age of RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 22 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 superannuation, the consequential retiral benefits be calculated from the date of their reporting and released to them within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
23. There shall be no order as to costs."
5. Notably, taking into consideration the aforesaid decisions, the Full Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 260/00654 of 2015 [Sri Manoranjan Naik & Ors Vs UOI & Ors] vide order dated 10.02.2026 directed for regularization of the service of the Applicant therein; which has also not been altered till date.
6. Thus going by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court noted above, we do not have any hesitation to hold that a person after serving a long period of time on adhoc/casual/contractual basis is entitled to regularization is no more res integra.
7. However, learned counsel for the Respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Madan Singh (supra) to state that the above decision, being of April, 2026, has of much application than the decisions rendered in the cases cited and relied on by the Applicant. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the factual aspects of the said case. On going through the decision, we find that in the said case the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 23 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide common order dated 31.05.2018, rendered in a batch of Writ Petitions, quashed the policy decisions of the General Administration Department of the State of Haryana dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 seeking to regularise the services of various contractual/ad hoc/daily wage employees falling in Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' by holding that the same are violative of the law laid down by the said Court in earlier case. The said common order dated 31.05.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that vide circular dated 07.03.1996, the General Administration Department of the State of Haryana framed a regularization policy of adhoc/casual employees but it had been withdrawn on 08.12.1997. Thereafter, vide notification on 29.07.2011, pursuant to the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) and as an "one time measure", services of Group 'B' employees continuously worked for not less than ten years as on 10.04.2006 on ad hoc/contractual or daily wage basis but not under the cover of any Court orders against duly RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 24 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 sanctioned vacant posts on duly sanctioned vacant posts fulfilling other conditions were sought to be regularized. Another Notification was issued on the same day regularizing the services of Group 'C' and 'D' employees engaged on ad hoc/contractual/work charged/daily wage or part time basis.
8. On 24.01.2014, the Haryana Public Service Commission published an advertisement seeking to fill in 1396 temporary posts of Assistant Professor in the Higher Education Department. This process of recruitment was directed to be completed by 31.12.2014 pursuant to an order dated 10.02.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in proceedings challenging the engagement of Guest Lecturers on contractual basis. On 16.06.2014, another Notification was issued by the Government in the matter of regularising the services of Group 'B' employees working on contractual basis. It was stated in the Notification that vide Circular dated 07.03.1996, the General Administration Department had framed a regularisation policy but it had been withdrawn on 08.12.1997. On a re-consideration of the matter, the policy dated 07.03.1996 was sought to be revived only to the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 25 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 extent of those Group 'B' employees, who were working on ad hoc basis and whose services could not be regularised due to its withdrawal. The criteria prescribed was (a) having worked for not less than three years as on 28.05.2014 and continuing in service, (b) possessing the prescribed qualification for the post on the date of appointment/engagement, (c) the work discharged was to be on a sanctioned vacant post at the time of the initial engagement and also at the time of regularisation, (d) the reservation policy as applicable ought to be borne in mind and (e) no relaxation in any of these requirements was permissible. On 18.06.2014, an earlier Notification dated 13.04.2007 issued by the General Administration Department came to be amended so as to regularise the left-over Group 'C' and 'D' employees, whose services could not be regularised under the earlier policies due to administrative reasons. The criteria prescribed was (a) having worked for not less than three years as on 28.05.2014 and continuing in service, (b) possessing the prescribed qualification for the post on the date of appointment/engagement, (c) the work discharged was to be on RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 26 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 a sanctioned vacant post at the time of the initial engagement and also at the time of regularisation, (d) the reservation policy as applicable ought to be borne in mind and (e) no relaxation in the prescribed criteria was permissible. On 07.07.2014, yet another Notification was issued seeking to regularise the services of Group 'B' employees appointed on sanctioned posts, who had or who were to complete ten years of service by the cut- off date of 31.12.2018. The criteria prescribed was (a) having worked for not less than three years as on 28.05.2014 and continuing in service, (b) possessing the prescribed qualification for the post on the date of appointment/engagement, (c) the work discharged was to be on a sanctioned vacant post at the time of the initial engagement and also at the time of regularisation, (d) the reservation policy as applicable ought to be borne in mind and (e) no relaxation in the prescribed criteria was permissible. It was also stated that the policy was an "one time measure" on humanitarian ground with a view to fill in vacant posts. On the same day, a similar policy was formulated for Group 'C' and 'D' employees based on similar criteria. The RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 27 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 Notifications dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and the two Notifications issued on 07.07.2014 were subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble High Court principally on the ground that an attempt was being made to revive the earlier policy of regularisation dated 07.03.1996. In the above context, by placing reliance of the earlier decision in the case of Jaggo (supra) only, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"23. Having found that the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid and that the High Court was not justified in holding otherwise, the services of the beneficiaries under these two Notifications would stand protected. In other words, in terms of the spirit of the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, the services of Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' employees, who satisfied the requisite criteria as prescribed are entitled to be regularised in terms thereof.
The subsequent Notifications dated 07.07.2014 are found to be arbitrary and illegal. Under the said Notifications, ad hoc employees from Group 'B', 'C' and 'D', who were in service since 31.12.2008 were intended to be regularised. A period of almost twelve years has elapsed since the issuance of these two Notifications. It is the specific stand of the State Government that even after excluding the ad hoc employees from Group 'B', 'C' and 'D', who seek benefit of these two Notifications, none of the posts advertised would be affected. Further, it is informed that such appointees have now gained sufficient experience and are likely to have settled in life with the passage of time. It is true that when the challenge was pending before the High Court, by an interim order dated 02.09.2016 it was directed that orders of regularisation if passed would be subject to the final outcome of the said proceedings. When the present proceedings were pending in this Court, an interim order directing status quo to be maintained was passed RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 28 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 in SLP(C) No.31566 of 2018 on 26.11.2018. It is, thus, clear that these ad hoc employees continued in service and their services are being still utilised by the State of Haryana. In these peculiar facts and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to permit such Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' ad hoc employees, who are continuing in service and who seek benefit of the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 be continued in service. They shall, however, be placed at the lowest pay scale that is admissible to the post held by them in terms of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others.
24. The suggestions made by the learned amicus curiae in his written submissions and elaborately articulated thereafter have been referred to in paragraph 10 (supra). The said contentions, in our view, do deserve serious consideration. We are, however, mindful of the fact that sitting in a Division Bench, there would be inherent difficulties for us to effectively adjudicate on these aspects. In the peculiar facts of these proceedings and as we have, with the aid of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, enabled continuation of the concerned ad hoc employees belonging to Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' under the Notifications dated 07.07.2014, we leave open the said contentions for being more effectively considered and dealt with in an appropriate case.
L. Order:
25. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 31.05.2018 stands partly modified as under:
(a) It is held that Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid and the judgment of the High Court to the extent it holds otherwise is set aside. The intervenors who are similarly situated and entitled to the benefit of the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 shall also be entitled to the reliefs flowing from such declaration, subject to verification by the competent authority.
(b) It is declared that the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 issued with a view to regularise the services of Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' employees with the State of Haryana are arbitrary and illegal. They are accordingly struck down. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 29 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' ad hoc employees, who have secured benefit of these Notifications and who continue in service shall not be disturbed. They shall, however, be placed in the lowest pay scale of the post held by them. The intervenors, who are similarly placed as those Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' ad hoc employees, who are presently in service in view of the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 shall also be entitled to the reliefs as referred to above, subject to verification by the competent authority.
(c) The employees, who had approached the High Court and who were granted liberty to take steps after the present batch of appeals were decided, are free to take appropriate steps in accordance with this judgment."
9. In the above factual matrix of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, however, while upholding the order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana insofar as Notification dated 07.07.2014 it was directed not to disturb the regularization already made pursuant to the said notification, which is not the present case.
10. Precedents: A source of "law" under the Constitution of India Article 141 of the Constitution lays down that the "law declared" by the Supreme Court is binding upon all the courts within the territory of India. The "law declared" has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of a law or judgment by the Supreme Court, RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 30 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 upon which, the case is decided. Hence, it flows from the above that the "law declared" is the principle culled out on the reading of a judgment as a whole in the light of the questions raised, upon which the case is decided. (See: Fida Hussain v. Moradabad Development Authority (2011) 12 SCC 615; Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213; and CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363). Further, a subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. Rule of precedent is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law. See: (i) Honda Siel Power Products vs. CIT, Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 596 (ii) S.I. Rooplal vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 594 (Three Judge Bench). In the case titled Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"8. Under the constitutional scheme as framed for the judiciary, the Supreme Court and the High Courts, both are courts of record. The High Court is not a court "subordinate" to the Supreme Court. xxxxxxx The High Court exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over all subordinate courts and tribunals; the Supreme Court has not been conferred with any power of superintendence. If the Supreme Court and RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 31 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 the High Courts both were to be thought of as brothers in the administration of justice, the High Court has larger jurisdiction but the Supreme Court still remains the elder brother. There are a few provisions which give an edge, and assign a superior place in the hierarchy, to the Supreme Court over High Courts. So far as the appellate jurisdiction is concerned, in all civil and criminal matters, the Supreme Court is the highest and the ultimate court of appeal. It is the final interpreter of the law. Under Article 139-A, the Supreme Court may transfer any case pending before one High Court to another High Court or may withdraw the case to itself. Under Article 141 the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts, including High Courts, within the territory of India. Under Article 144 all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India
-- and that would include High Courts as well -- shall act in aid of the Supreme Court."
11. In the aforesaid premises, on examination of the cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant and the case cited by the Respondents vis-à-vis the facts and issues involved in the instant case, we find that the decisions relied on by the Learned Counsel tilts/balances in favour of the applicant for regularization for the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to issue consequential order in compliance thereof in favour of the applicant, by following the principle set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Shripal & Another (supra), Dharam Singh & Ors RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:14:50 +05'30' 32 O.A.No. 260/00088 of 2022 (supra), Chander Mohan Negi and others (supra), H Vinod Kumar & Ors. (supra), Pawan Kumar (supra), Full Bench of this Tribunal in Manoranjan Nayak (supra) and decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Chand & Ors (supra) within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. In the result this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. Pending MAs if any stand disposed of. Costs made easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.15
17:14:50 +05'30'