Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohana M J vs The Managing Director on 16 April, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:22506
WP No. 14359 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 14359 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHANA M. J.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. JAYANNA,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T AND T.C,
NEAR VEDA PUMB HOUSE,
B.H. ROAD, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 548
2. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA SOBAGINA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O. BASAVARAJA SOBAGINA,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T. AND T.C.
MARIYAMMANAHALLI,
HOSAPET TALUK,
Digitally BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 222.
signed by
CHANDANA 3. SRI. NINGAPPA B. CHANDOORI
BM
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Location: S/O. SRI. BABU G CHANDOORI,
High Court
of Karnataka WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T. AND T.C., PLOT NO. 1,
KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
AMBEWADI AREA, DANDELI,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 325
4. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR H. M.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. MYLARAPPA H B,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T. AND T.C. NO. 22 C AND D,
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:22506
WP No. 14359 of 2022
HC-KAR
HARLAPUR, HARIHAR ,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601
5. SRI. SHARAD SHIVAJI JAMKHANDIKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. SHIVAJI Y JAMKHANDIKAR,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T. AND T.C., NO.22 C AND D,
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HARLAPUR, HARIHAR,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601
6. SRI. AMARESH HOSAGOUDRA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. MALLIKARJUN HOSAGOUDRA,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
NEAR VEDA PUMB HOUSE,
B H ROAD, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 548
7. SRI. PRADEEP
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. SRI. HONNEGOWDA,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T. AND T.C., NO. 8,
KIADB INDUSTRIAL ARA,
KATIHALLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
8. SRI. PRAKASH MALAVALLI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. HALAPPA MALAVALLI,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T. AND T.C.,
NEAR VEDA PUMP HOUSE,
B.H. ROAD, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 548
9. SRI. CHANDRA PRASAD . M.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. SIDDAIAH S.,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T. AND T.C., SOMANAHALLI,
MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 429
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:22506
WP No. 14359 of 2022
HC-KAR
10. SRI. D. K. PUTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. KASTURI,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T. AND T.C., NO. 8,
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
KATIHALLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
11. SRI. SHARATH RAJ URS
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O. ASHWAPATHI RAJ URS,
WORKING AS LECTURER,
G.T. AND T.C. OPP. TO SYNDICATE BANK,
SOMANAHALLI MADDUR,
MANDYA DIST. - 571 429
12. SRI. RAJASHEKAR K. S.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O. SHIVARAJU K. M.,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
G.T. AND T.C. HEART COCOON MARKET,
SANGAM ROAD, KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117
13. VENKATESH @ MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O VENATAGIRI,
WORKING AS LECTURER,
G.T. AND T.C., MACHENAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 222
14. MADHUSUDHAN H. R.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O. RAMACHANDRA H. K.,
WORKING AS LECTURER,
G.T. AND T.C. NEAR VEDA PUMB HOUSE,
B H ROAD, KADUR,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:22506
WP No. 14359 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
GOVT. TOOL ROOM AND TRAINING CENTER,
(AN INDO - DANISH PROJECT),
RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BENGALURU - 560 010
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N. AMARESH, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE (1) IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03
DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-N, (2) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER VIDE
ANNEXURE-P, (3) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-Q,
(4) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-R,
(5) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-S,
(6) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-T,
(7) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-V,
(8) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-W,
(9) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-X,
(10) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-Y,
(11) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 11TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-Z,
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:22506
WP No. 14359 of 2022
HC-KAR
(12) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-
AA, (13) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 13TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-
AB, (14) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF
NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT TO THE 14TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-
AC, SINCE THE SAME ARE UNJUST, ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND
UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the (1) impugned endorsement bearing ref.
No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 1st petitioner vide Annexure-N, (2) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 2nd petitioner vide Annexure-P, (3) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 3rd petitioner vide Annexure-Q, (4) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 4th petitioner vide -6- NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR Annexure-R, (5) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 5th petitioner vide Annexure-S, (6) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 6th petitioner vide Annexure-T, (7) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 7th petitioner vide Annexure-V, (8) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 8th petitioner vide Annexure-W, (9) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 9th petitioner vide Annexure-X, (10) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 Issued by the respondent to the 10th vide Annexure-Y, (11) impugned petitioner endorsement bearing ref.
No. GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 Issued by the respondent to the 11th petitioner vide Annexure-Z, (12) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 12th petitioner vide Annexure-AA, (13) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 13th petitioner vide Annexure-AB, (14) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/ -7- NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 14th petitioner vide Annexure- AC since the same are unjust, arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.
b. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, or direction directing the Respondent to extend the benefit of equal pay for equal work to the Petitioners on par with salary and all other emoluments being paid to the permanent employees working on the faculty side with effect from the date the Petitioners were appointed;
C. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, or direction directing the Respondent to regularise the services of the Petitioners and extend them all the service benefits including grant of regular pay scale, annual increments, seniority, etc., with effect from the date the Petitioners were appointed;
d. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF or reliefs asdeemed necessary to meet the ends of justice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-A announced on 28.09.2007, the petitioners were appointed as DTDM instructors in the Government Tool Room and Training Centre as contractual -8- NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR employees for a period of 3 years. After completion of the aforesaid period of 3 years, the petitioners continued to work on contract basis and the request of the petitioners for regularisation having been refused / declined by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.Nos.24714/2019 and 43708/2019 wherein this Court disposed of the matter as hereunder:
"In these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representations for regularization of their services.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are working as a Teacher in the respondent Training Centre. They have been appointed pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent dated 28.09.2007 vide Annexure-A, after following all the procedure of law, including the merit and reservation criteria. Even though their appointment on contract basis was for a period of three years, thereafter their services have been continued with intermittent brakes. Since they are working against clear vacancies and they have been appointed after following the procedure of law, they have given representations to the respondent seeking regularization of their services. The representations have been dated 18.11.2016, 06.10.2010, 14.08.2013 and 07.03.2017 vide Annexures - R, S, T and V, respectively in W.P.No.43708/2019 and in W.P.No.24714/2019 it is dated 18.11.2016, 06.10.2010, 14.08.2013 and 07.03.2017 vide Annexures - V, W, X and Y, respectively. Without -9- NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR considering their cases for regularization the respondents are making efforts to replace the petitioners by fresh recruitment. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent against clear vacancies. Even though as per the notification it is on contract basis for a period of three years, thereafter their services have been continued with intermittent brakes. Since their services have not been regularized they have given a representation but, without considering the case of the petitioners, now, the respondent is making efforts to replace the petitioners by fresh recruitment. The same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS vs. SANT LAL AND OTHERS, ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos.175-176/2019 (@SLP (C) Nos.37798
-37799/2013 disposed of on 08.01.2019). Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners have been appointed on contract basis, their services has been continued with intermittent brakes and they are not regular employees and they have been appointed after the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and they have not satisfied the conditions mentioned in that
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR case. Therefore, their cases cannot be considered for regularization. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. Some of the petitioners have been appointed on contract basis initially for a period of three years and some of them for one year. Later, giving intermittent brakes, their services have been continued. Since their services have not been regularized, they have approached the respondent by submitting the representations. Since their representations have not been considered and the respondent is making effort to make regular appointment to the said posts, the petitioners are before this Court.
7. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioners are at liberty to submit additional representation along with all the relevant documents to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is directed to consider the representation to be submitted by the petitioners within six months from the date of such representations.
8. Since the petitioners are having the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court on 18.09.2019 and 22.08.2019, respectively, the said interim order shall be enure to the benefit of the petitioners till the respondent takes a decision in the matter. It is made clear that the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR respondent has to communicate the decision to the petitioners.
With the above observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, the pending IAs. do not survive for consideration."
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite submission of subsequent representations to the respondents, the respondents have issued the impugned endorsements refusing to regularise the services of the petitioners, who are before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned endorsements will indicate that the respondents have refused to regularise the service of the petitioner placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi - 2006 (4) SCC 1. However, in the light of the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Dharam Singh & Ors Vs. State of UP & Anr - Civil Appeal No.8558/2018 - 19.08.2025, Pawan Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. - SLP (C) No.29214/2019 - 13.02.2026, Mahendra Prasad Agarwal Vs.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR Arvind Kumar Singh - SLP (C) No.17141/2025 - 10.02.2026, Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors - SLP (C) No.30762/2024 - 30.01.2026, Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors
- SLP (C) No.5580/2024 - 20.12.2024, Karnataka State Private College Stop - Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors - (1992) 2 SCC 29, Bhagwan Das Vs. The Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.4478/2022 dated 21.04.2024, Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors., in SLP(C) No.1347/2024 dated 22.08.2025, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsement deserves to be quashed and the respondents may be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner within a stipulated time frame.
6. Under identical circumstances in W.P.No.8346/2026, the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court were relied upon by this Court as under:
2. In Dharam Singh's case supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full-time"
employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and "vacancy" while
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
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 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.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-
hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is 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.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR 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 regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR 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,
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 21 grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. In Pawan Kumar's case supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"9. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that the law laid down by this Court in Jaggo (supra) supports the case of the appellants in their prayer for regularization. In paragraphs 13, 20, 21 and 26, it has been held as under:
"13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR 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..."
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
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 longserving 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."
10. The aforesaid observations are sufficient to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the appellants
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra). The High Court also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal. The appellants are entitled to similar reliefs as granted by this Court in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra).
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court dated 26.08.2019 in M.P. No.3460/2018 is set aside. The services of the appellants be regularized from 01.07.2006 on the same terms as made applicable in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra). The benefits be released in favour of the appellants within a period of three months from today."
4. In Mahendra Prasad Agarwal's case supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"14. There is no doubt about the fact that the "consider jurisprudence", so routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system.
15. When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow. The Constitutional or statutory remedies are not intended for academic discourse. If a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities is not to be confused with avoiding or postponing the relief. These are not matters of law, but of its working and practice. Unlike law and its procedures, good
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR practices that evolve over a period of time are far more precious than written laws, as it is in this practice that we see acceptance and internalization of the spirit of law. It is necessary to recognize, nurture and develop good practices which become habits. 9 These habits come from the shared belief, values and attitudes that breathe vitality into rule of law. Legal culture integrates collective beliefs, fostering habits. It is necessary and in fact compelling to keep our remedies simple, effective and efficient."
5. In Bhola Nath's case supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
13.5.Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6.This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of "part-time", "contractual" or "temporary" in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, 10 this Court underscored that government departments must lead by
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization.
13.7.In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 11 and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, 12 this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are merely "irregular", the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8.In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.13 , this Court strongly deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.
13.9.The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State's contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants' services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny.
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment."
6. In Jaggo's case supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers'
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."
7. In Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association's case supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"7. So far as these petitioners and teachers similarly situated are concerned, it could not be disputed that many of those teachers who appeared for selection in
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR pursuance of the High Court order secured sufficiently high marks but they could not be regularised because the vacancies are said to be reserved. But what has been lost sight of is that petitioners are seeking regularisation on posts on which they have been working and not fresh appointments, therefore, they could not be denied benefit of the High Court's order specially when no such difficulty was pointed out and it was on agreement by the respondents that the order was passed. No material has been bought on record to show that any action was taken prior to decision by the High Court against any institution for not following the reservation policy. To deny therefore the benefit of selection held on agreement by the respondents is being unjust to such selectees. Further the State of Karnataka appears to have been regularising services of ad hoc teachers. Till now it has regularised services of contract lecturers etc. It may not furnish, any basis for petitioners to claim that the State may be directed to issue similar order regularising services of teachers of privately managed colleges. All the same such policy decisions of government in favour of one or the other set of employees of sister department are bound to raise hopes and expectations in employees of other departments. That is why it is incumbent on governments to be more circumspect in taking such decisions. The petitioners may not be able to build up any challenge on discrimination as employees of government colleges and private colleges may not belong to the same class yet their claim cannot be negatived on the respondents' stand in the counter-affidavit that the regularisation of temporary teachers who have not
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR faces selection shall impair educational standard without explaining the effect of regularisation of temporary teachers of University and even technical colleges. Such being the unfortunate state of affairs this Court is left with no option but to issue following directions to respondents for not honouring its commitments before the High Court and acting contrary to the spirit of the order, and also due to failure of government in remaining vigilant against private management of the college by issuing timely directions and taking effective steps for enforcing the rules;
(1) Services of such temporary teachers who have worked as such for three years, including the break till today shall not be terminated. They shall be absorbed as and when regular vacancies arise.
(2) If regular selections have been made the government shall create additional posts to accommodate such selected candidates.
(3) The teachers who have undergone the process of selection under the directions of the High Court and have not been appointed because of the reservation policy of the government be regularly appointed by creating additional posts.
(4) From the date of judgment every temporary teacher shall be paid salary as is admissible to teachers appointed against permanent post.
(5) Such teachers shall be continued in service even during vacations."
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR
8. In Bhagwan Das's case supra, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
"37. The question is as to whether the services rendered by the workmen through a contractor till 02.11.2006 and the subsequent services rendered to the Municipal Authority through an outsource agency could be taken note of for the purpose of considering regularization of the petitioners services under the principal employer.
38. This very aspect was considered by the Apex Court in Shripal & Anr v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad4 [Shripal] and Jaggo v. Union of India and Others5 [Jaggo].
39. The Apex Court in no uncertain terms has recognized the system of contract labour/ out-sourcing as methods of avoiding direct recruitment. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Jaggo (supra) are as follows:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR
24. The landmark judgment of the United States in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation - 97F.3d1187 (9th Cir. 1996) serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
xxxx • 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."
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR The Apex Court has also specifically observed that the Judgment in Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked to defeat the legitimate claims of the employees. The observations at para 26 and 27 reads as follows:
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular"
appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."
40. The same position has been reiterated in Shripal (supra) at the following paras of the Judgment:
"11. Furthermore, the Employer's stance that there was never a direct employer-employee relationship is wholly unsubstantiated. If, in fact, the Appellant Workmen had been engaged solely through a contractor, the Employer would have necessarily maintained some form of contract documentation, license copies, or invoices substantiating the contractor's role in hiring, paying, and supervising these workers. However, no such documents have been placed on record.
Additionally, the Employer has failed to establish that wages were ever paid by any entity other than its own Horticulture Department, which strongly indicates direct control and supervision over the Workmen's day-to-day tasks is a hallmark of an employer-employee relationship. Had there been a legitimate third-party contractor, one would expect to see details such as tender notices, contract agreements, attendance records maintained by the contractor, or testimony from the contractor's representatives. The absence of these crucial elements undermines the Employer's claim of outsourced engagement. In fact, it appears that the Workmen were reporting directly to the Horticulture Department officials, receiving instructions on their duties, and drawing wages issued under the Municipality's authority. This pattern of direct oversight and wage disbursement substantially negates the narrative that they were "contractor's personnel." Consequently, the discontinuation of their services carried out without compliance with statutory obligations pertaining to notice, retrenchment compensation, or approval under Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, stands on precarious ground. The very foundation of the Employer's defense (i.e., lack of an employer-employee relationship) is not supported by any credible or contemporaneous evidence.
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR
12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer's municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project- based. Reliance on a general "ban on fresh recruitment" cannot be used to deny labor protections to long-serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent.
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
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR 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..."
9. In Shah Samir Bharatbhai's case supra, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"4. Academicians, lecturers and professors are the intellectual backbone of any nation, as they dedicate their lives to shaping the minds and character of future generations. Their work goes far beyond delivering lessons--it involves mentoring, guiding research, nurturing critical thinking, and instilling values that contribute to the progress of society. However, in many contexts, the compensation and recognition extended to them do not truly reflect the significance of their contribution. When educators are not treated with dignity or offered respectable emoluments, it diminishes the value a country places on knowledge and undermines the motivation of those entrusted with building its intellectual capital. By ensuring fair remuneration and dignified treatment, we affirm the importance of their role and reinforce the nation's commitment to quality education, innovation, and a brighter future for its youth.
5. It is just not enough to keep reciting gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarah at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers.
Xxxxx
31. The appellants were seeking parity of pay. The prayer for regularization, though made in the earlier rounds of litigation was never accepted. The facts of the present case are rather egregious. Assistant professors appointed on contractual basis during 2011 to 2025 have been working at
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR abysmally low monthly emoluments for the last two decades. While there is no material whatsoever drawing out a distinction between the duties and functions performed by them and that of their colleagues appointed regularly or on ad hoc basis, they continue to draw monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-."
7. In the instant case, the material on record undisputedly discloses that the petitioners were appointed as against the sanctioned post and have completed 10 years of continuous service from the date of initial appointment and consequently, the duties of the petitioners being perennial in nature, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation of their services and consequently, the impugned endorsement deserves to be quashed and necessary directions be issued to the respondents for regularization of the services of the petitioner.
8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to allow the petition by issuing certain directions. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22506 WP No. 14359 of 2022 HC-KAR
ii) The impugned endorsements dated 30.06.2022 at Annexures-N, P, Q, R, S, T, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB and AC are hereby quashed.
iii) The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners together with all consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80