Gujarat High Court
Anil Kantilal Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6875 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
ANIL KANTILAL PANDYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR ANSHIN DESAI, SR. COUNSEL with MS VENU H NANAVATY(7458) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DG CHAUHAN(218) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 01/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners herein through Union raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, being Reference (IT) No.35 of 1988 wherein, an award came to be passed in March, 2004 to regularize the services of the 127 employees in the regular services of the respondent. The said award is duly produced at Annexure - A, page 13. The award passed by the Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.35 of 1988 was challenged by the respondent - University by filing Special Civil Application No.1795 of 2005 and allied matters wherein, by judgment dated 23.02.2015, the petitions were disposed of and it was held that the award so far as the petitioners were concerned, would not survive. However, liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioners to make representation to the respondent - University with certain directions in paragraph 5 of the said judgment duly produced at page 78, Annexure - B. 1.1 The petitioners herein accordingly made representation to the respondent - University on 03.03.2015 duly produced at Annexure - C. The said representation was not decided and in view thereof, the petitioners were constrained to prefer Misc. Civil Application (For Direction) No.2058 of 2015 wherein, by order dated 04.02.2016, it was directed that if the applicants - petitioners were to make representation within one month for regularization, the same be considered by the respondent - University within a period of two months as per the earlier order duly produced at page 86, Annexure - D. 1.2 Accordingly, the petitioner made representation on 17.02.2016 duly produced at page 87, Annexure - E, seeking Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined regularization of the services, which came to be rejected by impugned communication dated 29.02.2016 duly produced at page 92, Annexure - F, on the ground that the said petitioners have not completed 240 days in one year continuously between 1991 to 2000 and in view thereof, the petitioners representation came to be rejected. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition having prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/ or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29-2-2016 marked ANN.F to this petition, being illegal and contrary to the record and be further pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners and grant relief of time-
scale of pay with retrospective effect i.e. the date from which others have been granted which is placed on record of this petition; (B) That Your Lordships be pleased to declare and hold the impugned action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in view of the order and judgment passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, as it amounts to serious unfair labour practice;
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of lowest scale of pay as per Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission recommendation, forthwith;
(D) Any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice together with costs."
2. Heard Mr. Anshin Desai, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Venu H. Nanavaty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Aakash Gupta, learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.1 - State and Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined advocate appearing for the respondent No.2.
3. Mr. Anshin Desai, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Venu H. Nanavaty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein were also part of the employees, who are part of the Union having raised the industrial dispute before the learned Industrial Tribunal and are also the beneficiaries of the said award passed in Reference (IT) No.35 of 1988. It is submitted that the petitioners herein are entitled to the regularization; the petitioners herein having completed 240 days in one year in consonance with the scheme of regularization framed by the respondent - University dated 02.05.2001 pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 574. It is submitted that the daily rated employees, who completed 10 years of service from the date of their appointment on respective posts and department, were regularized in light of the aforesaid scheme. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners be considered for regularization in the aforesaid background; the petitioners herein having worked as daily wagers in the respondent - University for more Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined than 30 years.
3.1 Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel submitted that while passing the impugned order rejecting the petitioners representation for regularization, the petitioners are declined the benefit of the scheme on the ground that the petitioners failed to complete 240 days in one year between 1991 to 2000. It is submitted that the aforesaid order is also contrary to the scheme introduced by the respondent - University. Reliance is placed on the order passed in Special Civil Application No.1795 of 2005 and allied matters wherein, in paragraph 2, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - University stated that the respondent - University framed a scheme pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gujarat Agricultural University (Supra), as referred above, and it was stated that about 127 daily rated employees, who completed 10 years of service from the date of their appointments on the respective posts and the department, would be regularized. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the aforesaid statement made by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent authority from the face of record.
Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined 3.2 Reliance is placed on the information sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein, the reply received by the petitioners is duly produced on record by way of Annexure- G colly. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 574 and placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that the respondent - University is governed by the scheme floated by the University for regularization of daily rated employees. Reliance is placed on paragraphs 10, 15, 17, 19, 26, 27, 28 and 50 of the said decision and it is substantiated that the clause where the University in its scheme provided for educational qualification, is intervened by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 30 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court holds that in view of the employees that working on daily wage basis, have long experience and for the concerned posts, the prescribed qualification, if any, should not come in way of their regularization. Clause 1(b) provides for regularization of daily wagers in a phased manner to the extent of available sanctioned post.
Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined 3.3 Reliance is further placed on the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.4443 of 2021 in case of Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University Vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela & Anr., wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 11 held that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gujarat Agricultural University (Supra) has become final and is binding on the University. The ratio laid down in case of Umadevi does not absolve the University of its duty to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (Supra).
3.4 Reliance is also placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 and in case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 1034. Placing reliance on the aforesaid two judgments, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has from time to time held that taking into consideration the longstanding services rendered by the petitioners as daily wagers and when there are vacancies on sanctioned post, the long standing services rendered by such petitioners should be considered for regularization. The claim of such employees should not be rejected merely because of Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined adherence to procedural formalities. It is submitted that the petitioners herein having been working with the respondent - University for such a long period; since decades, renders the services rendered by the petitioners indispensable and that, the University be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for be allowed.
4. Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 - University relied on the affidavit-in-reply duly produced at page 139 and submitted that the present petition be dismissed in limine. It is submitted that this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct regularization of services of the employees. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daya Lal & Ors., reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429 more particularly, paragraph 12 and it is submitted that it is well settled principle of law that this Court may not issue directions to regularize, absorbent or permanent constancy unless the employees claiming regularization have been appointed by regular recruitment process in accordance with Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined rules. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the petitioners herein having not completed 240 days in one year continuously in light of the requirement of the scheme, are declined the benefit of the scheme of regularization of ad-hoc employees. It is submitted that the respondent - State had sanctioned 189 posts pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the scheme laid down by the respondent - University on 01.04.2002 was a one-time measure and that, it is not possible to accommodate the petitioners on regular establishment. It is submitted that the petitioners have no right to seek regularization of services having worked on ad-hoc basis and the petitioners do not comply with the requirement of the scheme, as referred above.
5. Mr. Anshin Desai, learned senior counsel has taken the Court through the documents which are produced on record; having received the same by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act. Reliance is placed on Annexure - G, page 93 and taking the Court through the information placed on record, received by the petitioners qua all the six employees, it is submitted that two of the petitioners completed 240 days in one year continuously within 10 years from the date of Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined appointment as per the requirement of the scheme. It is submitted that the aforesaid is qua one Shri Anil Kantilal Pandya, the details of which are duly produced at page 93 and Mr. Hanifbhai Janmahmad Thaiyam, the details of which are duly produced at page 95 wherein, the date of appointment is 01.01.1982. It is submitted that qua the rest of the petitioners, the case be considered on its own merits. Placing reliance on the information placed on record, it is not in dispute that from the date of appointment to the date when the petition was filed, such petitioners completed 240 days in one year continuously within 10 years. It is submitted that even if such petitioners do not fall within the domain of the scheme, it is always open for the respondent - University to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in absence of any complaint against the petitioners herein and the petitioners herein having worked for more than 30 years. It is also submitted that there are vacancies in the respondent - University against which, the case of the petitioners can always be considered by the respondent - University.
6. Mr. Aakash Gupta, learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.1 - State has placed on record the Government Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined Resolution dated 01.04.2002 wherein, the proposal of the respondent - University to create 890 posts in the University to absorb the workmen who completed 10 years of service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year as daily rated workmen was approved subject to certain conditions. Analysis:-
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following emerge:
7.1 In the course of hearing, this Court asked Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - University to place on record the details with respect to the vacancies in the respondent - University as also, the calculation of 240 days in one year continuously within 10 years with respect to the petitioners herein. The aforesaid is duly complied with by Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate and placed on record the details of the petitioners herein by way of an Additional Affidavit at page 165 - 171.
7.2 It is apposite to reproduce a table placed on record by Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel with regard to the details of the petitioners which read thus:Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined LIST OF DETAILS OF PETITIONERS Petitioner Name Date of Work Wage No. of years Joining as on of Service As date on date (April (April '25) '25) 1 Anil Kantilal Pandya 21.01.1984 Tractor Rs.497 41 years Driver/ Pump Operator 2 Hanif Janmohammad 01.01.1982 Gardener Rs.497 41 years (as Thaiyam (retired on on date of 31.02.2023) retirement) 3 Ramesh Ramjibhai 04.10.1986 Pesticide Rs.497 39 years Dabhi Sprinkler 4 Kiritbhai Harsukhbhai 03.01.1987 semi-skilled Rs.497 37 years (as Dabhi (retired on on date of 31.05.2024) retirement) 5 Dinesh Karsanbhai 01.08.1984 Laboratory Rs.497 40 years Vaghela 6 Chandulal Amrutlal 01.04.1989 Pump Rs.497 36 years Makwana Operator
8. The petitioners herein are part of the industrial dispute raised by the Union wherein, by award dated 29.03.2004, 127 employees serving in the establishment of the respondent - University herein, were regularized. The aforesaid was subject matter of challenge by the respondent - University by filing Special Civil Application No.1795 of 2005 wherein, the said petition was disposed of reserving the liberty qua the petitioners herein to make representation before the respondent - University seeking the benefit of regularization under the scheme floated by the University for regularization of ad-hoc employees. It is apposite to reproduce paragraphs 4, Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined 5 and 6 of the said order, which read thus:
"4. Since the declaration has been made on behalf of the University to consider the case of left out respondents as per the Scheme, such a direction can be given. Resultantly, the award, so far as those persons are concerned, would not survive if their cases are also ordered to be considered in light of the scheme framed by the University.
5. In view of the aforesaid observations, following directions :-
(a) The concerned respondents shall be at liberty to move the University within a period of four weeks from today for considering their cases for regularization as per scheme formulated by the University pursuant to the above referred decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar (Supra).
(b) If such an application is made, the University shall consider the cases of those employees and if the conditions are satisfied benefits shall be conferred. Such process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application made by the respective employees.
6. In view of the aforesaid directions, the award passed by the Tribunal qua the concerned respondent employees would not survive. 8.1 The petitioners accordingly, made representation which was rejected on the ground that the petitioners failed to complete 240 days in one year for a period between 1991 to 2000.
9. Considering the submissions made by Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - University, those who completed 10 years of service from the date of appointment on the respective posts and department, were entitled to the benefit of the scheme of regularization floated by the respondent - University.
Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined
10. It is also apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, having considered the proposed scheme reported in (2001) 3 SCC 574 in case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors.. For the sake of brevity, proposed scheme is reproduced in paragraph 10 of the said decision. This Court deems it fit to reproduce the relevant paragraphs, which read thus:
"10. We heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the objections of the respondents with respect to the proposed scheme for the regularisation of daily rated workers. The proposed scheme is reproduced below:
"Scheme for regularisation of daily-rated labourers of Gujarat Agricultural University.
1. Daily-wager workers, whether skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1999, shall be regularised as regular employees with effect from 1.1.2000 and shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the University subject to the following terms and conditions:
(a) The daily rated employees shall be eligible and must possess the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of their appointment on daily rated basis.
(b) Daily-wager employees shall be regularised in a phased manner to the extent of available regular sanctioned posts/vacancies on the date of regularisation and on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness.
(C) The work and conduct of such employees should have been of over all good category and satisfactory and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against them.
(d) The regularisation will be against the posts/ vacancies of the relevant categories only.
2. Daily workers, whether skilled semi- skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years of continuous service with a Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1999 but could not be regularised shall be treated as monthly rated employees w.e.f. 1.1.2000 in the fixed pay without allowances as per the following formula:
Prepared by University:
Fixed pay = Daily rate prescribed by the X26 + Rs.500 the Government from time to time for skilled,semi-skilled, unskilled workers as the case may be They would be entitled to an annual increment of Rs. 15/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- respectively for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers till their services are regularised as per para-1.
3. Daily-wager whether skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year shall be paid daily wage at the rates prescribed by the Government of Gujarat from time to time for daily wager employees falling in Class III and Class IV.
4. The seniority of the daily rates Class III and IV employees so regularised vis-à-vis Class III and IV employees appointed on regular basis shall be determined w.e.f. 1.1.2000. The inter se seniority of such daily rate Class III & IV employees shall be determined in accordance with the date of joining the post on daily rated basis. If the date of joining the post(s), on daily rated basis by such daily rated employees was the same, then the elder employee shall rank senior to an employee younger in age. If the date of joining of the directly recruited regular employees and the date of regularised employees as per this scheme is the same, the direct recruit shall be senior.
15. The submission on behalf of the respondents is, the stand of the University that there are no permanent posts for absorption of such workers, on the facts of this case, where the appellant has been taking work from its workers year after year for more than one decade, then non-creation of posts itself constitutes an unfair labour practice. In fact by the time this industrial dispute was referred, respondent- workers completed 5 years of their continuous service and when arguments were concluded they completed 10 years of their continuous service. Both, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge found the existence of permanent nature work requiring them to be regularised. ......
17. .......Thus we have no hesitation to denounce this practice. If the work is of such a nature, which has to be taken continuously and in any case when this pattern become apparent, when they continue to work for year after year, only option to the employer is to regularise them. Financial viability no doubt is one of the considerations but then such enterprise or institution should not spread its arms longer than its means. The consequent corollary is, where work is taken not for a Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined short period or limited for a season or where work is not of part time nature and if pattern shows work is to be taken continuously year after year, there is no justification to keep such persons hanging as daily rate workers. In such situation a legal obligation is cast on an employer if there be vacant post to fill it up with such workers in accordance with rules if any and where necessary by relaxing the qualifications, where long experience could be equitable with such qualifications. If no post exists then duty is cast to assess the quantum of such work and create such equivalent post for their absorption.
19. What emerges is, all the respondent workmen are eligible for absorption on the facts of this case subject to any eligible qualification under the rule if any. Though no recruitment rules were filed in the proceedings either before the Tribunal or in the High Court but while proposing the scheme a copy of the recruitment rules for various cadres have been placed before us on behalf of the appellant University. This gives in column no.1 the serial no., in column no.2 the name of the post, in column no.3 the pay scale, in column no.4 the age limit and in column no.5 the qualification. Serial no.10 deals with Peon and Class IV servants, serial no.13 deals with Operator-cum- Mechanic, serial no.14 deals with Chowkidar, serial no.25 deals with Plumber and serial no.33 deals with Carpenter. This shows that recruitment rules did have these posts in its ambit about which we are concerned, yet no posts were created. This proposed creation of post is churned out only after this long battle by the workmen as against the appellant. It was not expected from the institutions like the present appellant, especially when it is fully funded by the State Government that this process of absorption should have taken such a long time and to have yielded to it only after this long battle. This legal position is well known not only to the appellant but the State who is funding it, then why to do it only after courts intervention. It is true, creation of post does involve financial implication. Hence financial health of a particular institution plays important role to which courts also keep in mind. The Court does exercise its restrain where facts are such where extent of creation of post creates financial disability. But at this juncture we would like to express our note of caution, that this does not give largess to an institution to engage larger number of daily wage workers for long number of years without absorbing them or creating posts which constitutes an unfair labour practice. If finances are short engagement of such daily wage workers could only be for a short limited period and if continuous work is required it could only do so by creating permanent post. If finances are not available, take such work which is within financial mean. Why take advantage out of it at the cost of workers.
27. In the light of the aforesaid decisions we now proceed to examine the proposed scheme. Under Clause 1 it is proposed that all daily wage workers, whether skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31st December, 1999 is to be regularised and be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the university. However, the said regularisation is subject to some conditions. Under Clause 1(a) such employee is eligible only if he possess the prescribed qualifications for Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined the post at the time of their appointment. The strong objection has been raised to this eligibility clause. The submission is, those working for a period of 10 or more years without any complaint is by itself a sufficient requisite qualification and any other rider on the facts of this case would prejudice these workers. We find merit in this submission. We have perused the qualifications referred in the aforesaid recruitment rules according to which, qualification for Peon is that he should study upto 8th std., for Operator-cum-Mechanic, should have Diploma in Mechanic having sufficient knowledge of vehicle repairing experience in automobiles or tractors Dealers workshop for two years, for Chowkidar, he must be literate and have good physique. Literate is not defined. For Plumber to have I.T.I. Certificate.
28. We feel that daily rate workers who have been working on the aforesaid posts for such a long number of years without complaint on these posts is a ground by itself for the relaxation of the aforesaid eligibility condition. It would not be appropriate to disqualify them on this ground for their absorption, hence Clause 1(a) need modification to this effect.
30. Thus in view of their long experience on the fact of this case and for the concerned posts the prescribed qualification, if any, should not come in the way of their regularisation. Clause 1(b) provides for the regularisation of daily wagers in a phased manner to the extent of available sanctioned post.
10.1 In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred above, in paragraph 30, considering the long experience rendered by such employees of the respondent - University held that the prescribed qualification should not come in way of regularization of such employees. It is held in the said paragraph that Clause 1(b) provides for regularization of daily wagers in a phased manner to the extent of available sanctioned posts. Accordingly, the respondent - State sanctioned 890 posts by way of Government Resolution dated 01.04.2002 which is placed on record by Mr. Aakash Gupta, learned AGP.
Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined
11. This Court has perused the information received by the petitioners through RTI. Upon harmonious reading of the submissions made by Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - University in Special Civil Application No.1795 of 2005, wherein, it is clearly submitted that the benefit of the scheme of regularization of the respondent - University would be available to such employees who completed 240 days in one year within 10 years from the date of appointment, read with Clause - 1 of the scheme which provides that the daily wage workers, whether skilled, semi- skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1999, shall be regularized as regular employees w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and shall be placed in time scale of pay applicable to corresponding lowest grade of University subject to certain terms and conditions. The aforesaid is to be read with the information placed on record, received by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, Annexure - G colly.
11.1 It emerges that and as pointed out by Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel that qua the petitioners No.1 - Shri Anilbhai Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined Kantilal Pandya, the petitioners appears to have completed 240 days from the date of appointment i.e. 21.01.1984 in the year 1993 i.e. 10 years, continuous 240 days in 1 year. Similarly, in case of Mr. Hanifbhai Janmahmad Thaiyam, the date of appointment is 01.01.1982. From the perusal of the information under the Right to Information Act, it emerges that considering the aforesaid 01.01.1982 to 01.01.1992, 240 days in one year continuously for 10 years. With respect to the information that is placed on record qua the other employees, it emerges that such employees appear not to have completed 240 days from the date of their appointment within 10 years before 1999.
12. In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the respondent - University holding that the petitioners case cannot be considered in light of the fact that the petitioners failed to complete 240 days within 10 years between 1991 to 2000 is such that the same is contrary to what was submitted in Special Civil Application No.1795 of 2005, the same having attained finality.
13. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to consider the case of the Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined petitioners in light of the judgments reproduced herein, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
13.1 In case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 1034. Paragraphs 15, 16 and 26 of the said decision read thus:
"15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to regularization.
16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades."Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined 13.2 In case of Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University Vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela & Anr., Civil Appeal No.4443 of 2021. Paragraph 11 of the said decision reads thus:
"11. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the university and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. The main contention of the university is that after the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors.2, the respondents are not entitled for regularization as there are no sanctioned posts available. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the judgment of this Court dated 18.01.2001 in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) does not survive after the judgment of this Court in Uma Devi. It is no doubt true that in Umadevi's case, it has been held that regularization as a one-time measure can only be in respect of those who were irregularly appointed and have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts. However, in the instant case the respondents are covered by the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). This Court approved the proposed scheme of the State of Gujarat and directed regularization of all those daily wagers who were eligible in accordance with the scheme phase-wise. The right to be regularized in accordance with the scheme continues till all the eligible daily-wagers are absorbed. Creation of additional posts for absorption was staggered by this Court permitting the appellant and the State of Gujarat to implement the scheme phase-wise. We are not impressed with the submissions made on behalf of the university that the judgment of this Court in Umadevi's case overruled the judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). The judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) inter partes has become final and is binding on the university. Even according to Para 54 of Uma Devi's case, any judgment which is contrary to the principles settled in Umadevi shall be denuded of status as precedent. This observation at Para 54 in Umadevi's case does not absolve the university of its duty to comply with the directions of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra)."
13.3 In case of Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad , Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024. Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the said decision read thus:
"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, Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined 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 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 judgement 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 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual,"
even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined 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."
14. In light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred above, and in the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein are working as daily wagers in the respondent - University as Agriculture Labourers since past more than 30 years continuously. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - University is not in a position to point out that during the span of 30 years, there are Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined any issues with regard to the competence or performance of the petitioners nor is there any allegation of misconduct attributed to the petitioners herein. Resultantly, this is a fit case to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the respondent - University is quashed and set aside for the reasons as stated above. The respondent - University to reconsider the case of the petitioners afresh taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, reported in AIR 1986 SC 458 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that while reckoning the number of days, the workman has worked, Sundays and other public holidays also should be taken into account.
16. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate has provided this Court with the details of the vacancies in the respondent - University. While considering the case of the petitioners for regularization pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6875/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined the respondent - University also to take into consideration the vacancies placed on record wherein, the petitioners herein appear to be Agriculture Labour and there are five vacancies therefore, it also cannot be said that there are no vacancies for the posts to be regularized in respondent - University. The aforesaid be undertaken in light of the scheme of the respondent - University as also independently, the petitioners herein having put in more than 30 years of service continuously as daily wagers in the respondent - University.
17. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed. Needful be done by the respondent - University within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) NEHA Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri May 30 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:30:00 IST 2025