Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Chaubey And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary Housing ... on 6 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 4247 of 2019 Virendra Kumar Chaubey and others ..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. through Secretary, Housing Urban Welfare Department, Lucknow and others ..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Mr. Gopal Misra, Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagan Nath Maurya, Advocate for the Meerut Development Authority RESERVED In Chamber HONBLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
This writ petition has been filed by five men working as Class IV employees in the establishment of the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut1, seeking a mandamus to the respondents to regularise their services in accordance with a Government Order2 dated 13.08.2025.
2. The petitioners say that they are work ing continuously with the Development Authority since the year 1991. The precise date of their engagement with the Development Authority and the nature of work done by them is depicted in tabular form below :
Sr. No. Name of Petitioner Nature of Work Date of Employment 1 Virendra Kumar Chaubey Mate 01.07.1991 2 Rajkumar Sharma Mate 01.07.1991 3 Gaya Prasad Mate 01.07.1991 4 Chandra Prakash Mate 01.11.1991 5 Zaheer Ahmad Gardener (Maali) 08.08.1991
3. The petitioners say that reckoned from the date of their engagement, they have been continuously working with the Development Authority, doing their respective jobs for the last 28 years. It is the petitioners case that they have learnt from reliable sources that the daily wagers/work-charged employees and those hired on contract in similar positions like them by other development authorities have been regularised, but the petitioners are still continuing as daily wagers, despite lapse of a period of 28 years. In particular, the petitioners rely upon a GO dated 13.08.2025 issued in regard to employees working with development authorities, corporations, local bodies, autonomous bodies, who were appointed prior to 31.03.1996. The GO directed regularisation of their services, subject to certain conditions. These conditions would be alluded to later in this judgment.
4. The petitioners say that in compliance with the GO last mentioned, the Secretary, Urban Housing Welfare and Development asked for details of employees working on daily wages with the Development Authority. In response, some details were sent by the Development Authority to the aforesaid Secretary to the Government vide letter dated 04.11.2015, where, names of all the petitioners find mention. A similar letter was sent again by the Secretary aforesaid to the Development Authority on 08.01.2016. This letter too was answered by the Development Authority. In answer to the Secretary, by a letter dated 21.01.2016, it was said that the necessary particulars have been furnished earlier. The matter was pursued then on behalf of the Employees Union, seeking regularisation of the twelve daily wagers, including the petitioners, by a letter of the President of the Union addressed to the Vice Chairman of Development Authority.
5. On 27.07.2016, a meeting was held to consider regularisation of daily wagers in different development authorities by the Government, regarding which, a memo dated 21.07.2016 was issued by a Deputy Secretary to the Government, addressed to the Chairman of various development authorities, including the Development Authority. Nothing came out of it, according to the petitioners.
6. The petitioners say that in the meantime, a new GO was issued, by which, names of daily wagers working from 31.03.1996 to 31.12.2001 were also called for by the Government from various development authorities. In response to the subsequent GO, the Development Authority again sent names of the petitioners, clarifying that these men have been working much before 31.03.1996 and their names have already been sent for regularisation, but nothing done. The long engagement of the petitioners, which was 28 years on the date when this writ petition was instituted, and by now, a period of 35 years, is telltale of the fact that notwithstanding the absence of a formal sanction of posts, the work done by the petitioners were of a permanent and perennial nature. By the petitioners retention in service, all their useful years have been spent in the service of the Development Authority. To deny them regularisation at this juncture would be a violation of their rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. They are all overage for employment elsewhere.
7. A notice of motion was issued in this writ petition on 15.03.2019. In course of time, parties have exchanged affidavits in plenty, including a personal affidavit by the Chairman of the Development Authority.
8. In the first of the counter affidavits filed by the Chairman of the Development Authority, the position, for a fact is not disputed that the petitioners have been engaged on daily wage basis since the various dates in the year 1991 and that they are continuously working on their respective assignments. They are working sans posts, because, there are none. The respondents say that they have written to the Government to sanction twelve supernumerary posts for employees similarly circumstanced, including the petitioners, but the Government have not done that. Vide GO dated 13.08.2015, regularisation of daily wagers/work-charged employees appointed till 31.03.1996 has been directed as against vacant posts or supernumerary posts created by the Government. It is added that at present, the Government does not have vacant posts or supernumerary posts to regularise the services of the petitioners.
9. In the rejoinder affidavit, that was initially filed, the petitioners took a stand that they were entitled to regularisation in terms of the Rules of 2016 and referred to a further GO of 09.07.2021 addressed by a Secretary to the Government to the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority. The services of Class IV employees working since before 31.12.2001 were to be regularised under rules, whether engaged on daily wages or contract. It was also pointed out that this GO indicated that in case there were no posts, supernumerary posts would be created for the purpose by the Government. The other affidavits and how the controversy narrowed down a bit during the course of hearing to the extent relevant shall be alluded to later.
10. The parties having exchanged affidavits, as already remarked, this petition was admitted to hearing on 19.07.2023, which proceeded across various dates. Considering the stand of parties, some further affidavits were permitted to be filed during the course of hearing, since there are developments supervening.
11. Heard Mr. Gopal Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jagan Nath Maurya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority.
12. We have already noticed the stand taken by the Development Authority and the petitioners case in sufficient detail, while delineating the case of parties.
13. It would be apposite now to notice the stand of the Government, which has been disclosed earliest in the counter affidavit dated 14.01.2020 filed on behalf of the State. In the counter affidavit filed by an Under Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the Department of Housing and Urban Planing Department, on the date last mentioned, it is said that by a GO of 13.08.2015, it was provided that the employees engaged until 31.03.1996 on a daily wage, work-charge or contract basis, who have the prescribed eligibility to be recruited and were working at present, to wit, on 13.08.2015, shall be regularised against available vacancies, and if no vacancy was available, on supernumerary posts. Bearing in mind the GO dated 13.08.2015, approval of the Finance Department was received for regularisation of the petitioners services on 26.10.2016, and thereafter, Honble The Chief Minister directed the State Authorities to proceed in accordance with the opinion of the Finance Department. The Finance Department, in their noting for creation of supernumerary posts made a comment that for regularisation of services of daily wagers and work-charged employees, the Department of Personnel had already framed rules, which were adopted by the State and formally framed by the Governor, in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. These rules are called The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working of Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group C and Group D Posts (Outside the Purview of The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 20163. The stand further is that these rules, which proprio vigore apply to the Government and its departments, had to be adopted by autonomous bodies, Nigam, Boards etc., but the Board of the Development Authority had, till date, not adopted the aforesaid rules. It was on account of non-adoption of the Rules of 2016 that creation of supernumerary posts for the petitioners was in limbo, but still under consideration, awaiting that adoption. This is, in substance, the stand of the State Government.
14. The stand of the Development Authority, on one hand, has been that they have requested the Government for creation of supernumerary posts to regularise the petitioners services, whereas, on the other, the State Governments stand is that unless the Rules of 2016 are adopted by the Board of the Development Authority, it is not possible for the Government to sanction those supernumerary posts, against which, the petitioners could be regularised.
15. The affidavits, that have been filed during hearing, have been a tug-of-war between the State Government and the Development Authority on the issue indicated above. Happily, in the last affidavit that was filed on behalf of the petitioners, being an affidavit dated 18.05.2025, it is indicated that the Board of the Development Authority, vide resolution dated 16.04.2025, have adopted the Rules of 2016. A copy of the Development Authoritys resolution passed by the Board in their 128th meeting dated 16.04.2025 (relevant part) reads :
1.
मेरठ विकास प्राधिकरण में अकेन्द्रीयित सेवा के समूह "ग एवं "घ के पदों पर दैनिक वेतन या वर्कचार्ज संविदा पर कार्य कर रहे व्यक्तियों के विनियमितीकरण हेतु नियमावली-2016 को अंगीकृत किये जाने हेतु प्रस्ताव।
मा0 बोर्ड द्वारा विनियमितीकरण नियमावली-2016 अधिसूचना संख्या-9/2016/2/1/97/का-2/2016 दिनांक 12.09.2016 को अंगीकृत किये जाने का निर्णय लिया गया।
16. This affidavit was filed when the matter had to be posted for further hearing to seek clarification on a certain point.
17. Mr. Jagan Nath Maurya, learned Counsel appearing for the Development Authority did not dispute the fact that this resolution had been adopted by the Development Authority. There is apparently no impediment now for the Government in sanctioning supernumerary posts for the petitioners, against which, their services can then be regularised by the Development Authority. Mr. Maurya has, nevertheless, certain reservations, because he says that they would be saddled with extra financial burden, that would fall upon their shoulders, bearing in mind the GO dated 13.08.2015. We do not know if that will happen, once the posts are sanctioned, may be supernumerary. But, it is a matter that can be dealt with between the Development Authority and the State Government, which is not primarily our concern. Our concern is that the State Government can now sanction supernumerary posts, which they must do, going by their own stand in paragraph no. 3 of the counter affidavit dated 14.01.2020. They cannot resile from it now.
18. On the generality of the petitioners right to be regularised in service, Mr. Maurya impressed upon this Court that the petitioners did not have a right to be regularised, and doing that, militates against the principle of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Certainly, equality of opportunity in matters of public employment for all citizens is a principle that inspired the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others4 The Constitution Bench too made a distinction between illegally and irregularly appointed persons, who had continued in service for long. Their Lordships provided that the Union of India and the State Governments as well as their instrumentalities to take steps as a one-time measure to regularise services of those irregularly appointed, who had continued for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts, but not under orders of the Court or Tribunals. Here, reference may be made to the authority of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and others v. R.J. Pathan and others5, upon which Mr. Maurya placed heavy reliance. In that case, despite the employees continuing for a period of 17 years, the order of the Division Bench directing a consideration of the employees case for regularisation sympathetically and, if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts, was set aside by their Lordships upon an appeal by the State of Gujarat. The following remarks of the Supreme Court in R.J. Pathan (supra) may be referred to :
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondents herein original writ petitioners were, as such, appointed in a temporary project, which was created only for the purpose of rehabilitation pursuant to the earthquake for Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme. All of them were initially appointed for a period of eleven months on a fixed salary, which came to be continued from time to time till the requirement in a particular project/unit Project Implementation Unit. However, as the said unit was required to be closed which, as such, was a temporary unit, instead of putting an end to the services of the respondents, the State Government thought it fit to transfer and place them with the Indian Red Cross Society. At this stage, the respondents approached the High Court and challenged their placement with the Indian Red Cross Society.
.....
8. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was in the year 2011. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondents by way of LPA. In the year 2011, the Division Bench granted the interim relief and directed to maintain status quo and pursuant to the said interim order, the respondents were continued in service with the Government. In the year 2021, when the said LPA was taken up for further hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that as by now the respondents have worked for seventeen years, the State may be directed to absorb them in the Government and their services may be regularised.
9. By observing that as the respondents have worked for a long time i.e. for seventeen years, the Division Bench has directed the State to consider the cases of the respondents for absorption/regularisation and if required, by creating supernumerary posts. However, while issuing such a direction, the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the respondents were continued in service pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court.
10. The Division Bench has also not appreciated the fact and/or considered the fact that the respondents were initially appointed for a period of eleven months and on a fixed salary and that too, in a temporary unit Project Implementation Unit, which was created only for the purpose of rehabilitation pursuant to the earthquake for Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme. Therefore, the unit in which the respondents were appointed was itself a temporary unit and not a regular establishment. The posts on which the respondents were appointed and working were not the sanctioned posts in any regular establishment of the Government.
11. Therefore, when the respondents were appointed on a fixed term and on a fixed salary in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project, no such direction could have been issued by the Division Bench of the High Court to absorb them in Government service and to regularise their services. The High Court has observed that even while absorbing and/or regularising the services of the respondents, the State Government may create supernumerary posts. Such a direction to create supernumerary posts is unsustainable. Such a direction is wholly without jurisdiction. No such direction can be issued by the High Court for absorption/regularisation of the employees who were appointed in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project and that too, by creating supernumerary posts.
12. From the impugned judgment and order [R.J. Pathan Project Implementation Unit v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 2467] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears that what has weighed with the High Court was that the respondents were continued in service for a long time i.e. seventeen years. However, the High Court has not considered that out of seventeen years, the respondents continued in service for ten years pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court. Therefore, even considering the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , the period for which the employees have continued in service pursuant to the interim order is to be excluded and not to be counted. The High Court has totally missed the aforesaid aspect.
13. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and the subsequent decision of this Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari [Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 472] , relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is concerned, none of the aforesaid decisions shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was, (1) to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future, and (2) to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past and who have continued for a very long time. The decision of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] may be applicable in a case where the appointments are irregular on the sanctioned posts in regular establishment. The same does not apply to temporary appointments made in a project/programme.
19. The facts in R.J. Pathan would show that the employees were appointed in a temporary project set up for the purpose of rehabilitation in the aftermath of an earthquake. Also, the employees in that case had continued in service for the most part after their writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge under interim orders of the Division Bench made in the Letters Patent Appeal.
20. Here, the position is entirely different. This is not the case of a fixed-term appointment in a temporary project or a continuous service under judicial orders, interim in nature. Rather, the tenor of pleadings, that have come from the Development Authority, says that they have themselves felt the need to regularise services of the petitioners, but could not do so in the absence of supenumerary posts being sanctioned by the Government. It is nobodys case that the petitioners have been illegally appointed. It is true that there were no posts against which they were appointed. But, that issue has been answered in later authorities of the Supreme Court, that we would presently notice. They have worked for 35 years - 28 years on the date of institution of the writ petition, if one were to peg their rights on the date the cause of action arose. It must be noticed that there are no interim orders made in this writ petition, permitting them to continue in service.
21. In addition, the claim of the respondents is founded on the Rules of 2016, where, the nature of their employment is well within eligibility for regularisation. The only clog, that has kept the State Government from sanctioning supernumerary posts to appoint the petitioners, was the fact that the Rules of 2016 had not been adopted by the Board of the Development Authority, which pendente lite has been done on 16.04.2025.
22. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that all that has been held in R.J. Pathan would not come to the Development Authoritys rescue in this case.
23. The point involved in this petition, in our opinion, has already received attention of the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and another6. The relevant facts in Jaggo (supra) may be noticed from the report of their Lordships judgment, which reads :
4. The appellants before this Court, being Applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 before the Tribunal, were originally engaged by the Central Water Commission on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No. 1 was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No. 2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and Applicant No. 3 as a Safaiwali in 1999. All three were primarily responsible for cleaning and maintaining the office premises under the CWC. Applicant No. 5, appointed in 2004 as a Khallasi (also discharging duties akin to a Mali/Khallasi), was entrusted with tasks such as gardening, dusting, and other ancillary maintenance work. Throughout their engagement, these individuals performed essential housekeeping and support functions at CWC establishments, including its offices at Faridabad, ensuring daily upkeep and contributing to the smooth functioning of the Commission's administrative operations.
5. Initially, the appellants sought regularization of their services by filing Original Application No. 2211/2015 before the Tribunal. They contended that over the years, their roles and responsibilities had evolved beyond the nominal labels of part-time or contractual and that they were performing ongoing and core functions integral to the CWC's operations. They relied on applicable government instructions and the principle that long-serving employees, engaged against work of a perennial nature, deserve fair consideration for regularization, provided their appointments were not illegal or clandestine. The Tribunal, by its order dated 17.04.2018, dismissed the appellants' plea. It concluded that the appellants were not engaged on what it considered regular vacancies, that they had not completed what it termed as sufficient full-time service (such as meeting a 240-days per year criterion), and that their case did not attract the principles enabling regularization. Within ten days after the dismissal of the original application, on 17.04.2018, the services of all these individuals were abruptly terminated on 27.10.2018 by the respondent authorities without issuance of any show-cause notice.
..
7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous service, the nature of their work, and the lack of any backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had functioned without any break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees, and had been assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent's offices. The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's decision and the submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant housekeeping and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. .....
24. On these facts, it was held in Jaggo :
10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.
11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areasa set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as part-time workers, the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
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 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 judgment of this Court inVinod Kumarv. Union of India, 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 judgment 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 judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case .....
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.
.....
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between illegal and irregular appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
25. In Jaggo, the Supreme Court quashed the orders of termination, that were in issue and directed reinstatement of the employees, together with regularisation in service.
26. In Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad7, the facts leading to the appeal before their Lordships of the Supreme Court can best be noticed the way these have been described in the report of the judgment. It reads :
3. The factual matrix leading up to the appeal before us is as follows:
3.1. The Appellant Workmen claim to have been engaged as Gardeners (Malis) in the Horticulture Department of the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, since the year 1998 (in some instances, since 1999). According to them, they continuously discharged horticultural and maintenance duties such as planting trees, maintaining parks, and beautifying public spacesunder the direct supervision of the Respondent Employer. They further allege that no formal appointment letters were ever issued to them, and that they were persistently denied minimum wages, weekly offs, national holidays, and other statutory benefits.
3.2. In 2004, the Appellant Workmen, along with many other similarly situated employees, raised an industrial dispute (C.B. Case No. 6 of 2004) before the Conciliation Officer at Ghaziabad, seeking regularization of their services and the requisite statutory benefits. They contend that, upon learning of this demand, the Respondent Employer began delaying their salaries and subjected them to adverse working conditions. Eventually, around mid-July 2005, the services of numerous workmen were allegedly terminated orally, without any notice, written orders, or retrenchment compensation.
3.3. Since the above termination took place during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the Appellant Workmen argue it violated Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the State Government referred the disputes concerning both (i) regularization and (ii) legality of the alleged termination, to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad for adjudication.
3.4. The Labour Court proceeded to decide the references vide two orders:
(i) Order dated 03.06.2011 : In numerous adjudication cases (e.g., Adjudication Case Nos. 448, 451, 467 of 2006, etc.), the Labour Court passed awards holding the terminations illegal for want of compliance with Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement with 30% back wages.
(ii) Order dated 11.10.2011 : However, in about 41 other adjudication cases (e.g., Adjudication Case Nos. 269, 270, 272, etc.), the Labour Court arrived at a contrary conclusion, dismissing the claims on the finding that the concerned workmen had not been engaged directly by the Nagar Nigam but rather through a contractor, and hence had no enforceable right to reinstatement or regularization against the Respondent Employer.
3.5. Aggrieved by the adverse portion of the awards (i.e., those granting reinstatement), the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, filed several writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the Labour Court's findings. On the other hand, the workmen whose claims were dismissed by the other set of awards also approached the High Court by filing their own writ petitions. All these writ petitions were heard together, culminating in the common judgment dated 01.03.2019, which partly modified the Labour Court's conclusions.
3.6. Through the impugned judgment, the High Court held that while the Labour Court was correct in exercising jurisdiction under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (since municipalities could be treated as industry), there remained factual complexities as to whether the workmen were genuinely on the rolls of the Nagar Nigam or were provided by contractors. The High Court also noted that the State Government had, by notifications/orders, placed a ban on fresh recruitments in Municipal Corporations, thereby restricting direct appointments to any post. Ultimately, the High Court partially modified the relief granted, directing re-engagement of the workmen on daily wages, with pay equivalent to the minimum in the regular pay scale of Gardeners, while allowing future consideration of their regularization if permissible by law.
4. Both the Appellant Workmen and the Respondent Employer have now approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. The workmen primarily seek full reinstatement with back wages and a direction to secure their regularization, whereas the Respondent Employer seeks to quash the modifications ordered by the High Court on the ground that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting partial relief akin to regular employees, contrary to constitutional provisions and the State's ban on recruitment.
27. No doubt, Shripal (supra) was a matter which arose out of an award made by a Labour Court, where, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were at play to govern the rights of the workmen vis--vis the employer, but, principles of far-reaching consequence in the context of the right to regularisation were laid down, which read :
13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The principle of equal pay for equal work, repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer's direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements.
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 recordsdespite directions to do soallows 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 judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of Temporary Labels : Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as temporary or contractual, even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination : Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression : Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
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.
28. Of particular relevance to the issue here is the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another8. The facts in Dharam Singh (supra) are set forth in the report of their Lordships judgment, which reads :
4. The factual backdrop to the present appeal is as follows:
4.1. The appellants were engaged by the Commission between 1989 and 1992. Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 served as Class-IV employees (Peon/attendant duties), and Appellant No. 6 served as Driver (Class-III). They were paid as daily wagers and, with effect from 08.04.1997, received consolidated monthly amounts (Rs. 1,500 for Class-IV; Rs. 2,000 for Driver), while discharging ministerial and support functions during regular office hours. The Commission, established under the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, processes large recruitment cycles for teachers and principals and requires ministerial support for scrutiny of applications, dispatch, and connected administrative work.
4.2. On 24.10.1991, the Commission resolved to create fourteen posts in Class-III and Class-IV and sought sanction from the State Government. On 27.12.1997, the State sought particulars of daily-wage hands and their service details. On 11.02.1998, the Commission furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers which included the present appellants.
4.3. On 16.10.1999, the Commission reiterated its request, seeking sanction of two posts of Driver and ten posts for Peon/Mali/Chowkidar, adverted to administrative exigencies, and referred to earlier correspondence. By letter dated 11.11.1999, the State rejected the proposal citing financial constraints.
4.4. Aggrieved, the appellants instituted Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 before the High Court praying for
(i) Quashing of the State's order dated 11.11.1999;
(ii) A mandamus to the State to sanction/create fourteen posts in Class-III/IV for the Commission in terms of the Commission's resolution and proposals and, thereafter, to regularise the appellants against those posts with regular pay; and
(iii) Consequential non-interference and salary directions.
4.5. On 24.04.2002, the High Court directed the Commission to send a fresh recommendation for sanction of appropriate Group-C/Group-D posts and directed the State to take a fresh decision thereon. In the meantime, having regard to the appellants' long engagement, the Commission was directed to pay them the minimum of the applicable pay scale.
4.6. Pursuant thereto, a fresh recommendation was sent and by communication dated 25.11.2003, the State declined sanction, again citing financial grounds and a ban on creation of new posts.
4.7. By judgment dated 19.05.2009, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no rules for regularisation in the Commission had been shown and that even assuming the 1998 Regularisation Rules applied, there were no vacancies for the appellants. Moreover, the Single Judge held that regularisation was impermissible in view of the law declared in Secretary, State of Karnataka. v. Umadevi and allied precedents. It was also observed that the petitioners (appellants herein) had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003.
4.8. The appellants preferred Special Appeal No. 1245 of 2009. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the dismissal, observing that the appellants were daily wagers, that there were no rules for regularisation in the Commission and that no vacancy existed for considering them.
29. In Dharam Singh, it was held :
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are unable to endorse the approach adopted by the High Court. The original writ petition before the High Court expressly assailed the State's refusal dated 11.11.1999 to sanction posts for the Commission and sought a mandamus for creation of posts with consequential consideration for the appellants. The Single Judge of the High Court, and the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, treated the matter as a bare plea for regularisation, answered it only on the touchstone of absence of rules and vacancy, and rested principally on Umadevi (Supra). In doing so, the Courts below failed to adjudicate the principal challenge to the State's refusal and the legality of its reasons. In our opinion, such non-consideration amounts to a misdirection and, in effect, a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
8. The State's refusal of 11.11.1999 cites financial constraints and the subsequent decision of 25.11.2003 (taken after the High Court's direction to reconsider) adverts to financial crisis and a ban on creation of posts. Neither decision engages with relevant considerations placed on record, namely, the Commission's 1991 resolution and repeated proposals, the acknowledged administrative exigencies of a recruiting body handling large cycles, the continuous deployment of these very hands for years, and the existence of attendant work that is primarily perennial rather than sporadic. While creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. We believe that a non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of financial constraints, ignoring functional necessity and the employer's own longstanding reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution.
9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of applications, dispatch and office support, and driving, has been continuous and integral to the Commission's functioning since their engagement between 1989 and 1992. The Commission itself moved for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers including the appellants. That consistent internal demand, coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of the appellants' labour on regular office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the duties are perennial. To continue extracting such work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength is a position that cannot be sustained.
....
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term ad hocism, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are illegal and those that are irregular, the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite temporary employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of Temporary Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as temporary or contractual, even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
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.
....
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to 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 ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
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.
(emphasis by Court)
30. Tested on the touchstone of these far-reaching principles, here we have a case where the petitioners have to their credit 35 years of long service, and, at least, 28 years on the day when the writ petition was instituted. Realistically speaking, it should be regarded as 35 years, because, they are continuing in service without the aid of interim orders. The semblance of a clog that the Development Authority earlier pointed out was the absence of sanctioned posts, which the State Government did a tango to by saying that the Rules of 2016 had not been adopted by the Development Authoritys Board. Now, pending the present writ petition, blissfully, the Development Authoritys Board vide resolution dated 16.04.2025 have adopted the Rules of 2016. The State Government must now, therefore, sanction the necessary supernumerary posts to regularise the petitioners. We would think that given the fact that the number of supernumerary posts far exceed the sanctioned posts in this case, the State Government must spare a thought, bearing in mind the perennial nature of work, to sanction commensurate and adequate number of posts to bring about regularity in the cadres of its staff.
31. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. A mandamus is issued to the State Government (respondent nos. 1 and 2) to sanction the requisite number of supernumerary posts for the purpose of regularising the petitioners services, which they must do within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Immediately upon sanction of the posts, which the State Government shall intimate to the Development Authority, both to the Vice Chairman and the Secretary within a week of that decision being taken, the Secretary and the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority shall proceed to consider the petitioners case for regularisation, bearing in mind the remarks in this judgment and the petitioners case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the State Governments decision to sanction supernumerary posts.
32. There shall be no order as to costs.
33. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut.
(J.J. MUNIR) JUDGE October 06, 2025 I. Batabyal Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes